October Term 2016 · Docket 15-1498
Is the federal crime of violence definition too vague to convict?
The dispute centers on whether a federal statute defining violent crimes is unconstitutionally vague.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Kneedler argued the lower court erred in finding the statute vague.
Mr. Rosenkranz argued the statute shares critical flaws with the clause struck down in Johnson.
Justice Sotomayor noted the difficulty in defining the ordinary crime for risk assessment.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 30-36 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 30-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-16 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 52-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 52-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-4
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the clarity of a federal law defining violent crimes. The government argues the law is clear. The defendant argues the law is vague.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-14
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 17, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to reject the vagueness claim and uphold the conviction.
The defendant wants the Court to find the statute unconstitutionally vague and overturn the conviction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-14
What each side says
The government argues the statute is clear because it lists specific violent acts.
The defendant argues the statute is vague because it requires judges to guess the nature of a crime.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-14
What the justices asked
Justice Kagan asked why the statute would not cause confusion in applying the law.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the government previously argued the statute was vulnerable after the Johnson decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 30-36 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 30-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-16 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 52-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 52-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-4
Why it matters
This case determines whether federal courts can consistently apply the crime of violence definition. It affects how prosecutors charge violent offenses under federal law. It impacts the rights of defendants facing these specific charges.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-14
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 30-36 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 30-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-16 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 52-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 52-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-4
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-14
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.