(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. DAVIS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18–431. Argued April 17, 2019—Decided June 24, 2019 Respondents Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were charged with mul- tiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. They were also charged under 18 U. S. C. §924(c), which authorizes heightened criminal penalties for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with any federal “crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” §924(c)(1)(A). “Crime of violence” is defined in two subparts: the elements clause, §924(c)(3)(A), and the residual clause, §924(c)(3)(B). The residual clause in turn defines a “crime of violence” as a felony “that by its na- ture, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the per- son or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” Ibid. A jury convicted the men on most of the underly- ing charges and on two separate §924(c) charges for brandishing a firearm in connection with their crimes. The Fifth Circuit initially rejected their argument that §924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitu- tionally vague, but on remand in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U. S. ___, the court reversed course and held §924(c)(3)(B) unconsti- tutional. It then held that Mr. Davis’s and Mr. Glover’s convictions on the §924(c) count charging robbery as the predicate crime of vio- lence could be sustained under the elements clause, but that the oth- er count—which charged conspiracy as a predicate crime of vio- lence—could not be upheld because it depended on the residual clause. Held: Section 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. Pp. 4–25. (a) In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due pro- cess and separation of powers. This Court has recently applied the doctrine in two cases involving statutes that bear more than a pass- 2 UNITED STATES v. DAVIS Syllabus ing resemblance to §924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause—Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, which addressed the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), and Sessions v. Dimaya, which addressed the residual clause of 18 U. S. C. §16. The residual clause in each case required judges to use a “categorical approach” to deter- mine whether an offense qualified as a violent felony or crime of vio- lence. Judges had to disregard how the defendant actually commit- ted the offense and instead imagine the degree of risk that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals