It’s not easy to make a career in crime these days. The banks are cracking down on scoff-law traders, Google Earth is tracking your illegal logging, and even old-fashioned, violent criminals are routinely given decade-long sabbaticals due to sentencing enhancements.

What exactly qualifies as such a crime can be hard for career criminals and federal courts to determine. And that’s exactly the problem, the Supreme Court ruled in one of its last cases of the term. The ACCA’s so called “residual clause,” quoted above, is unconstitutionally vague, the Court ruled, failing to give adequate guidance to courts and offenders both.

The ACCA’s Residual Clause

The ruling isn’t a total blow to the Armed Career Criminals Act, but it does limit its reach slightly. The ACCA is a federal “three strikes” statute, which imposes mandatory minimums if offenders have been classified as armed career criminals. To qualify, a defendant must have three prior serious drug or violent felony convictions.

Are Sawed-Off Shot Guns Violent?

In this case, the serious risk of violence was attached to the possession of a sawed-off shot gun. Samuel Johnson, an unsympathetic white supremacist from Minnessota, plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The government sought an ACCA enhancement, based on his three previous strikes, one of which was a conviction for possessing a sawed-off shot gun.

Circuits were split on whether possession of a sawed-off shot gun was a violent crime under the ACCA, and the Supreme Court was originally supposed to decide this issue. After oral arguments, however, the Court called the parties back to argue the constitutional question – whether the ACCA’s residual clause was so vague that it violated due process.

Taking the Guesswork Out…

The Court’s opinion, written by Scalia and joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Bryer, Sotomayor and Kagan, notes that the ACCA’s residual clause has been difficult to apply and resulted in arbitrary sentences.

…Sort Of

With the residual clause struck down and the ACCA trimmed of some power, it will now be up to lower courts to determine what happens to those previously sentenced under the clause.

Related Resources:

  • Justice Antonin Scalia (Yes, Scalia) Rules for a Criminal Defendant (Los Angeles Times)
  • The Supreme Court’s Death Penalty Problem: Drugs, Vague Standards (FindLaw’s U.S. Supreme Court Blog)
  • Grants: Search, Career Criminal, and the Infamous Israel Passport (FindLaw’s U.S. Supreme Court Blog)
  • Restrictions on Handgun Ammo Sales Void for Vagueness (FindLaw’s California Case Law)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules