October Term 2018 · Docket 18-431
Does the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause violate the Constitution?
The dispute centers on whether a vague statutory clause allows courts to convict defendants based on subjective risk assessments.
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
the side that brought the case's advocate argued the residual clause should be invalidated.
The advocate cited the need for Congress to speak more clearly on prohibitions.
justice_questioning
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-10 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 20-21 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 20-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 36-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-34 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-18
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the constitutionality of a specific sentencing provision. The government argues the clause is valid. The defendant argues it is unconstitutionally vague.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 36-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-8
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to uphold the residual clause as a valid sentencing tool.
The defendant wants the Court to strike down the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 36-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-8
What each side says
The government argues the clause provides sufficient notice to defendants about prohibited conduct.
The defendant argues the clause requires judges to make subjective predictions about future behavior.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 36-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-8
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the case avoided a circumstance-specific approach.
Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the language best supports a categorical approach.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-10 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 20-21 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 20-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-34 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-18
Why it matters
This issue determines whether courts can enhance sentences based on vague statutory language. It affects the rights of defendants facing enhanced penalties. It clarifies the limits of judicial discretion in sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 36-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-8
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 33-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-10 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 20-21 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 20-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-34 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 10-18
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 33, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 36-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 36-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-8
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.