Johnson v. United States
Issues
Is the “residual clause” in the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague?
(Note: this preview is for re-argument of Johnson v. United States. For the earlier arguments, see the preview for Johnson v. United States - Nov. 2014.)
The Supreme Court will hear rearguments in this case to determine whether the “residual clause” in the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is unconstitutionally vague. The original issue on appeal urged the Court to consider whether possession of a short-barreled shotgun is a violent felony under the ACCA, but after oral arguments, the Court ordered a rehearing to determine whether the ACCA’s residual clause itself is unconstitutionally vague. The Petitioner, Samuel Johnson, argues that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and violates due process. In opposition, the Respondent, the United States, contends that the clause is not unconstitutionally vague and successfully provides direction to judges and citizens when determining how to conform their actions to the law. The outcome of this case may effect the role of judges in interpreting the residual clause of the ACCA, the uniformity of sentencing across different states, and the level of notice people have regarding whether a crime is a violent felony under the ACCA.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation started investigating Samuel James Johnson’s participation in the Aryan Liberation Movement (“Movement”) in 2010. See United States v. Johnson, No. 12-3123, 2013 WL 3924353, at *1 (8th Cir. 2013). Johnson intended to counterfeit United States currency in order to support the activities of the Movement.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
Lyle Denniston: Court Orders New Look at Armed Criminal Law, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 9, 2015).