## Facts

- Samuel James Johnson pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The government sought a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum for defendants with three prior convictions for a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense.”
- Johnson’s enhancement was based on three Minnesota convictions: attempted simple robbery, simple robbery, and unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun.
- The district court treated the shotgun-possession conviction as a “violent felony” under ACCA’s “residual clause” and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and ultimately resolved the case on whether ACCA’s residual clause is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether ACCA’s residual clause defining a “violent felony” as an offense that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause.
2. Whether a sentence increase imposed under that residual clause can constitutionally stand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that imposing an increased sentence under ACCA’s residual clause violates due process.
- The Court declared ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide fair notice and invites arbitrary enforcement.
- The Court concluded Johnson’s ACCA-enhanced sentence could not stand insofar as it depended on the residual clause.
- Justice Scalia authored the opinion of the Court; Justice Alito dissented; Justices Kennedy and Thomas concurred in the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal law violates due process if it is so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of what it punishes or is so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.
- Vagueness doctrine applies to sentencing provisions that increase statutory sentencing ranges, not only to statutes defining criminal elements.
- ACCA’s residual clause is void for vagueness because it combines (1) a categorical “ordinary case” inquiry with (2) an indeterminate assessment of both the degree and measurement of “serious potential risk,” producing unpredictability in application.
- The Court may decline to follow prior decisions upholding a provision when subsequent experience shows persistent inability to apply it consistently, notwithstanding stare decisis.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness, invalidating sentence enhancements that depended on that clause because it provided insufficient notice and permitted arbitrary judicial enforcement.


Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015)