Johnson v. United States
- Decided
- June 26, 2015
- Docket
- 13-7120
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,137 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that criminal culpability can depend on "matter of degree" (internal quotation marks omitted) — United States v. Barrett (2018)
- holding that a nearly identical residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague — United States v. Diaz (2017)
- holding that laws are not unconstitutionally vague merely because they “call for the application of a qualitative standard such as ‘substantial risk’ to real-world conduct” — United States v. Anthony Evans (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice SCALIAdelivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm faces more severe punishment if he has three or more previous convictions for a "violent felony," a term defined to include any felony that "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). We must decide whether this part of the definition of a violent felony survives the Constitution's prohibition of vague criminal laws.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.