31:
402:
493:. Scalia described the statute as a "failed enterprise" that invited "arbitrary enforcement." He declared that individuals are unconstitutionally deprived of due process when they are convicted under "a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes."
549:
Justice Alito dissented, arguing that the court could and therefore should interpret the residual clause in a narrower way that meets constitutional standards. He also found the circumstances of
Johnson's sawed-off shotgun conviction, it being in his possession during a drug deal in a public parking
472:
to decide if the state law banning possession of a sawed-off shot gun qualified as a "violent felony" under the residual clause. The case was initially argued on
November 5, 2014, but the Court asked the parties to reconvene and directly address the question of whether or not the residual clause was
385:
due to his involvement in suspected terrorist groups. Over the years, he revealed to undercover agents his plans to carry out terrorist attacks, as well as his illegal supply of weapons. In 2012, he was indicted on multiple counts of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Johnson
372:
defined a "violent felony" as an act that threatens "use of physical force against the person of another," "is burglary, arson, or extortion," "involves use of explosives," or "otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." The last part of this
441:
420:
508:—that "honed in on the imprecision of the phrase 'serious potential risk'". However, "neither opinion evaluated the uncertainty introduced by the need to evaluate the riskiness of an abstract ordinary case of a crime."
432:
386:
pleaded guilty to the weapons charges and was sentenced under the ACCA's residual clause to a statutory minimum of 15 years for having three prior "violent felony" convictions, one of which was possession of a
806:
411:
744:
699:
559:
465:
144:
81:
464:
Johnson's lawyers argued that mere possession of a sawed-off shotgun does not qualify as a "violent felony" as described under the residual clause. In 2013, an appeal to the
490:
291:
468:
upheld the decision by the
District Court to sentence Johnson to 15 years in accordance to the ACCA. The Supreme Court of the United States originally granted the case
364:
that was enacted to impose tougher sentences in illegal firearms cases on defendants who have previously been convicted three or more times for "violent" felonies.
440:
816:
511:
Noting that "ecisions under the residual clause have proved to be anything but evenhanded, predictable, or consistent", the Court decided that "tanding by
541:
Justices
Kennedy and Thomas wrote separate opinions concurring in judgment, but disagreeing that the residual clause of ACCA is unconstitutionally vague.
801:
426:
The Court first considered whether the state law banning possession of a sawed-off shot gun qualified as a "violent felony" under the residual clause.
574:(2018) - constitutionality of similar clause in civil context (specifically, deportation), in which a plurality found straightforward application of
811:
361:
419:
161:
The
Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague and as a result one's due process rights are violated.
365:
328:
282:
35:
382:
525:
is meant to serve." The Court held that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague, overruling the contrary holdings in
773:
595:
498:
306:
381:
Samuel James
Johnson was a lifelong criminal and active white supremacist who, starting in 2010, was monitored by the
582:
614:
564:
447:
The case was reargued to address the question of whether or not the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague.
357:
332:
279:
496:
The Court had raised the specter of unconstitutional vagueness in two prior cases regarding the residual clause—
622:
606:
504:
312:
781:
748:
703:
586:(2019) - touches on the same section of the Armed Career Criminal Act and references this decision often
148:
76:
100:
204:
570:
336:
590:
Previous
Supreme Court decisions about the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act:
489:
wrote the opinion of the Court, which determined the residual clause to be in violation of the
110:
387:
755:
695:
369:
220:
196:
192:
719:
132:
647:
486:
208:
184:
65:
795:
521:
216:
176:
439:
418:
286:
340:
228:
129:
785:
469:
456:
140:
88:
764:
723:
136:
648:"Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. S 924(e)): An Overview (R41449)"
473:
unconstitutionally vague. The case was reargued on April 20, 2015.
550:
lot, could have met even a narrow interpretation of the clause.
30:
245:
Scalia, joined by
Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
400:
331:
case in which the Court ruled the
Residual Clause of the
807:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
560:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576
519:
would undermine, rather than promote, the goals that
273:
265:
257:
249:
241:
236:
165:
155:
121:
116:
106:
96:
71:
61:
51:
42:
23:
687:
685:
683:
681:
679:
677:
675:
673:
671:
669:
373:definition became known as the "residual clause".
299:This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
56:Samuel James Johnson, Petitioner v. United States
8:
20:
774:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
639:
362:Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
454:
18:2015 United States Supreme Court case
7:
817:Armed Career Criminal Act case law
455:Problems playing these files? See
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
802:United States Supreme Court cases
751:___ (2015) is available from:
437:
416:
29:
812:2015 in United States case law
652:Congressional Research Service
626:(2011) - overruled in part by
599:(2007) - overruled in part by
1:
327:, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), was a
654:. August 11, 2022. p. 5
433:Reargument five months later
329:United States Supreme Court
833:
765:Oyez (oral argument audio)
583:Stokeling v. United States
615:Chambers v. United States
565:Armed Career Criminal Act
360:(ACCA) was a part of the
358:Armed Career Criminal Act
352:Armed Career Criminal Act
333:Armed Career Criminal Act
304:
297:
280:Armed Career Criminal Act
278:
170:
160:
28:
782:Johnson v. United States
741:Johnson v. United States
720:526 F. App'x 708
716:United States v. Johnson
692:Johnson v. United States
337:unconstitutionally vague
324:Johnson v. United States
126:United States v. Johnson
24:Johnson v. United States
310:(2007) (in part) &
45:Reargued April 20, 2015
43:Argued November 5, 2014
623:Sykes v. United States
607:Begay v. United States
596:James v. United States
505:Sykes v. United States
499:James v. United States
412:Initial oral arguments
405:
313:Sykes v. United States
307:James v. United States
404:
253:Kennedy (in judgment)
87:135 S. Ct. 2551; 192
47:Decided June 26, 2015
339:and in violation of
292:U.S. Const. amend. V
261:Thomas (in judgment)
111:Opinion announcement
107:Opinion announcement
370:§ 924(e)(2)(B)
205:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
571:Sessions v. Dimaya
406:
181:Associate Justices
578:to be dispositive
442:
421:
388:sawed-off shotgun
320:
319:
824:
778:
772:
769:
763:
760:
754:
727:
713:
707:
689:
664:
663:
661:
659:
644:
444:
443:
423:
422:
403:
316:(2011) (in part)
166:Court membership
151:1059 (2014).
33:
32:
21:
832:
831:
827:
826:
825:
823:
822:
821:
792:
791:
776:
770:
767:
761:
758:
752:
736:
731:
730:
714:
710:
706:___ (2015).
690:
667:
657:
655:
646:
645:
641:
636:
556:
547:
539:
491:Fifth Amendment
484:
479:
462:
461:
453:
451:
450:
449:
448:
445:
438:
435:
429:
428:
427:
424:
417:
414:
407:
401:
396:
379:
354:
349:
300:
290:
221:Sonia Sotomayor
219:
207:
197:Clarence Thomas
195:
193:Anthony Kennedy
92:
46:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
830:
828:
820:
819:
814:
809:
804:
794:
793:
790:
789:
779:
735:
734:External links
732:
729:
728:
708:
665:
638:
637:
635:
632:
631:
630:
619:
611:
603:
588:
587:
579:
567:
562:
555:
552:
546:
543:
538:
535:
487:Justice Scalia
483:
480:
478:
475:
466:Eighth Circuit
452:
446:
436:
431:
430:
425:
415:
410:
409:
408:
399:
398:
397:
395:
392:
378:
375:
366:18 U.S.C.
353:
350:
348:
345:
318:
317:
302:
301:
298:
295:
294:
283:18 U.S.C.
276:
275:
271:
270:
267:
263:
262:
259:
255:
254:
251:
247:
246:
243:
239:
238:
234:
233:
232:
231:
209:Stephen Breyer
185:Antonin Scalia
182:
179:
174:
168:
167:
163:
162:
158:
157:
153:
152:
123:
119:
118:
114:
113:
108:
104:
103:
98:
94:
93:
86:
73:
69:
68:
63:
59:
58:
53:
52:Full case name
49:
48:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
829:
818:
815:
813:
810:
808:
805:
803:
800:
799:
797:
787:
784:, overview (
783:
780:
775:
766:
757:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:
733:
725:
721:
717:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
688:
686:
684:
682:
680:
678:
676:
674:
672:
670:
666:
653:
649:
643:
640:
633:
629:
625:
624:
620:
617:
616:
612:
609:
608:
604:
602:
598:
597:
593:
592:
591:
585:
584:
580:
577:
573:
572:
568:
566:
563:
561:
558:
557:
553:
551:
544:
542:
536:
534:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:stare decisis
518:
514:
509:
507:
506:
501:
500:
494:
492:
488:
481:
476:
474:
471:
467:
460:
458:
434:
413:
393:
391:
389:
384:
376:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
351:
346:
344:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
315:
314:
309:
308:
303:
296:
293:
288:
284:
281:
277:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:Case opinions
235:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:Chief Justice
172:
171:
169:
164:
159:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
131:
127:
124:
120:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
101:Oral argument
99:
95:
90:
84:
83:
78:
74:
70:
67:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
740:
715:
711:
691:
656:. Retrieved
651:
642:
627:
621:
613:
605:
600:
594:
589:
581:
575:
569:
548:
540:
537:Concurrences
530:
526:
520:
516:
512:
510:
503:
497:
495:
485:
463:
380:
377:Case History
355:
323:
322:
321:
311:
305:
274:Laws applied
224:
217:Samuel Alito
212:
200:
188:
177:John Roberts
125:
117:Case history
80:
55:
15:
726: 2013).
341:due process
258:Concurrence
250:Concurrence
229:Elena Kagan
143:. granted,
796:Categories
786:SCOTUSblog
658:August 31,
634:References
470:certiorari
457:media help
347:Background
287:§ 924
62:Docket no.
394:Arguments
89:L. Ed. 2d
72:Citations
739:Text of
724:8th Cir.
554:See also
482:Majority
477:Opinions
242:Majority
137:8th Cir.
130:F. App'x
97:Argument
696:13-7120
628:Johnson
601:Johnson
576:Johnson
545:Dissent
289:(e)(1),
266:Dissent
156:Holding
139:2013);
66:13-7120
777:
771:
768:
762:
759:
756:Justia
753:
722: (
698:,
694:, No.
618:(2009)
610:(2008)
368:
285:
227:
225:·
223:
215:
213:·
211:
203:
201:·
199:
191:
189:·
187:
128:, 526
747:
702:
531:Sykes
527:James
517:Sykes
513:James
269:Alito
147:
122:Prior
79:591 (
749:U.S.
704:U.S.
660:2024
529:and
515:and
502:and
356:The
335:was
149:U.S.
141:cert
82:more
77:U.S.
75:576
745:576
700:576
383:FBI
145:572
133:708
91:569
798::
743:,
718:,
668:^
650:.
533:.
390:.
343:.
788:)
662:.
459:.
135:(
85:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.