## Facts

- Maurice Lamont Davis and Andre Levon Glover committed multiple armed robberies of gas stations in the Dallas, Texas area in June 2014.
- The robberies involved concealment with bandanas, use of a firearm, theft of cash and cigarettes, and escape in a gold SUV.
- After the fourth robbery, the defendants were apprehended following a high-speed chase.
- A federal jury convicted Davis (six counts) and Glover (seven counts), including Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using/carrying/possessing a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.”
- Section 924(c) defines “crime of violence” through an elements clause (§ 924(c)(3)(A)) and a residual clause (§ 924(c)(3)(B)); the case centered on the residual clause’s validity.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause definition of “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause.
2. Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) should be interpreted to require a categorical (ordinary-case) analysis or a case-specific (conduct-based) analysis to avoid vagueness concerns.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held, 5–4, that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.
- The Court concluded the statute had been understood to require a categorical approach, not a case-specific approach, and rejected rewriting the provision through constitutional-avoidance reasoning.
- Applying prior vagueness decisions, the Court found the residual clause required courts to hypothesize an “ordinary case” and then assess an ill-defined “substantial risk” of force, yielding no reliable standard.
- The Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: a § 924(c) conviction predicated on substantive Hobbs Act robbery could proceed under the elements clause, but a § 924(c) conviction predicated on Hobbs Act conspiracy could not rely on the invalid residual clause.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is void for vagueness when it fails to provide fair notice and invites arbitrary enforcement in violation of due process.
- Section 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause is unconstitutional because, under the categorical approach, it requires speculation about an offense’s “ordinary case” and an indeterminate assessment of “substantial risk” of force.
- Courts may not use constitutional avoidance to adopt an interpretation that conflicts with a statute’s text, context, and historical understanding.
- After invalidation of § 924(c)(3)(B), a § 924(c) “crime of violence” predicate must qualify under the elements clause (§ 924(c)(3)(A)) (or the firearm count must rest on a drug-trafficking predicate), not the residual clause.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, limiting § 924(c) “crime of violence” predicates to offenses that satisfy the elements clause and requiring vacatur of firearm convictions that depended solely on the residual clause.


United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019)