Johnson v. United States is the latest in a long string of Supreme Court cases about how to interpret the Armed Career Criminal Act, which defines a violent felony as, inter alia, “any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year … that … is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” It was argued last fall and didn’t seem like it would be much more unusual than most cases about the ACCA.
Justice Scalia has been arguing with increasing force that the Act is vague.
Today after its first conference of 2015, the Supreme Court ordered the parties in Johnson to brief and reargue the following question: “Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague.”
The reargument order suggests that there’s a good chance Justice Scalia may have convinced his colleagues that he’s right
If you have a loved one, who was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Offenders Act, please stay in touch.
We may be able to be of some assistance in the very near future.
We will be following this case very closely.