United States v. Davis

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis. Defendants Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted for a string of Texas robberies and faced mandatory minimum sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for brandishing a firearm during a “crime of violence.” The case challenged the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B), which defined a crime of violence as any felony that “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force… may be used.” The Court, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Gorsuch, held that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. Relying on the void-for-vagueness doctrine, the Court found the clause required a “categorical approach” that produced intolerable uncertainty about what ordinary case of an offense entails. The ruling directly extended the logic of Johnson v. United States (2015) to the § 924(c) context, invalidating the definition and vacating the firearms convictions.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, reversing the Fifth Circuit and remanding for further proceedings, effectively invalidating the firearms sentencing enhancement based on that clause.

Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) defining “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The decision significantly narrowed the scope of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offenses, leading to resentencing for numerous defendants convicted under the residual clause. It reinforced the void-for-vagueness doctrine in criminal law and compelled Congress to rely on more precise statutory definitions for violent crimes.