Johnson vs. US (Summary)

Johnson vs. US - Summary

The petitioner, Johnson, pleaded guilty for « violent felony » and unlawful possession of firearms. Which he had already been convicted of three times prior. The District Court therefore referred to the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), which is a US federal law that increases sentence for felons who commit crimes with a firearms (if already convicted for different crimes three or more times), and convicted Johnson of a 15 years sentence.

The Supreme Court judged the District Court decision to extend Johnson sentence, under the ACCA’s residual clause criteria, as a violation of Due Process. This decision modifies the previous precedents made regarding the ACCA’s residual clause. The Supreme Court had previously (James vs. United States and Sykes vs. United States) stated that this clause was not « void for vagueness ».

(When a law is to vague for the average citizen to understand and therefore being impossible for them to determine who is regulated, what conduct is prohibited or what punishment may be imposed by the law. courts may find that law to be void for vagueness.)

Within the Constitution of the United States due process is used in the fifth and fourteenth amendment. This clause ensures the rights and equality of all american citizens before the law. The Supreme Court can interpret the Due Process Clause rather broadly and thus provides four different protections which includes a prohibition against vague laws. The residual clause is then declared unconstitutional due to it’s vagueness therefore violating due process.

Out of the nine Justices six of them, lead by Justice Scalia, agreed with the holding and formed the majority. Two other Justices, Kennedy and Thomas, formed their own concurring opinions while Alito was the only one dissenting out of the nine Justices.

...