## Facts

- Gregory Welch pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The district court sentenced Welch under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on three prior convictions treated as “violent felonies,” triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum rather than the ordinary 10-year maximum.
- Over Welch’s objection, the district court treated a Florida strong-arm robbery conviction as an ACCA predicate, finding it qualified under ACCA’s elements clause and residual clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that the robbery conviction qualified under ACCA’s residual clause, and Welch’s conviction became final after certiorari was denied.
- In Johnson v. United States (2015), the Supreme Court held ACCA’s residual clause void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause.
- After Johnson, Welch sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing Johnson applied retroactively and invalidated his ACCA enhancement; lower courts denied relief and a certificate of appealability.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review.

## Issues

1. Whether Johnson’s rule invalidating ACCA’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague is a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague v. Lane.

## Decision

- The Court held, 7–1, that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review.
- The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Johnson’s retroactive application.
- Justice Thomas dissented, characterizing Johnson as procedural and warning against expanding retroactivity in collateral proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Teague, new substantive rules apply retroactively on collateral review; procedural rules generally do not.
- A rule is substantive if it alters the range of conduct or the class of persons the law punishes, including by narrowing a statute’s scope or removing a category of punishment the government may impose.
- Johnson is substantive because voiding ACCA’s residual clause changed ACCA’s substantive reach by eliminating a category of predicate offenses that could authorize the enhanced sentencing range.
- A sentence imposed under an unconstitutional sentencing provision cannot be legitimized by accurate factfinding because the provision itself no longer authorizes punishment.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Johnson’s invalidation of ACCA’s residual clause is a substantive constitutional rule that must be applied retroactively in § 2255 collateral proceedings, allowing prisoners whose ACCA enhancements depended on the residual clause to seek relief.


Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016)