January 10, 2015
SCOTUS orders new briefing and argument on ACCA's constitutionality in Johnson!?!?!
The US Supreme Court on Friday afternoon added a remarkable twist to what had been a small sentencing case, a case which had its (first) SCOTUS oral argument earlier this Term, via this new order:
13-7120 JOHNSON, SAMUEL V. UNITED STATES
This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing 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 supplemental brief of petitioner is due on or before Wednesday, February 18, 2015. The supplemental brief of the United States is due on or before Friday, March 20, 2015. The reply brief, if any, is due on or before Friday, April 10, 2015. The time to file amicus curiae briefs is as provided for by Rule 37.3(a). The word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs. The case will be set for oral argument during the April 2015 argument session.
As some readers likely know, and as Will Baude effectively explains in this new post at The Volokh Conspiracy, "Justice Scalia has been arguing with increasing force that the Act is vague, and the reargument order suggests that there’s a good chance he may finally have convinced his colleagues that he’s right."
This strikes me as huge news, especially because I think any ruling that part of ACCA is unconstitutionally vague would be a substantive constitutional judgment that should get applied retroactively to hundreds (and potentially thousands) of federal prisoners serving mandatory minimum terms of 15 years or more. US Sentencing Commission data suggests that perhaps 5000 or more federal defendants have been sentenced under ACCA over the last decade, though I would guess the majority of these cases did not hinge on the ACCA subprovision that SCOTUS might now find unconstitutional.
January 10, 2015 at 10:23 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SCOTUS orders new briefing and argument on ACCA's constitutionality in Johnson!?!?!:
It's definitely a big case. I could imagine it also having impact on similar state laws as well.
Posted by: Erik M | Jan 10, 2015 2:17:03 PM
A pro-defendant ruling would also presumably invalidate the residual clause in the career offender guideline, which applies to a lot more people than the ACCA statute.
Posted by: Jay | Jan 10, 2015 3:32:21 PM
What would the effect of that be, given that it is discretionary?
Posted by: Erik M | Jan 10, 2015 8:33:28 PM
I just read the transcript of the argument and there was no mention of the void for vagueness argument at all. Interesting.
Posted by: defendergirl | Jan 12, 2015 10:40:07 AM