Castleman decision -- DV conviction
Opinion here. The core issue: defendant had been convicted under a State statute that forbids knowingly "causing bodily injury," in this case to the mother of his child. The Gun Control Act forbids gun possession by anyone convicted of using or threatening "force" against an intimate partner. Does he fit within the Federal statute, since (1) you can cause bodily injury without using force (e.g., by giving someone drugs or poison) and (2) "force" under the Federal statute might mean something more than what is required to prove common-law battery (for which an offensive poke of the finger is sufficient, although I can't see how this meshes with the State statute that requires injury).
The Supreme Court answers -- good try, but no cigar. Scalia concurs on narrower grounds, agreeing that "force" means enough force to at least hold the potential of causing bodily injury.