Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 50

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

13 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

tation and hold that the residual clause requires an exam­
ination of real-world conduct. 

The  Court’s  only  reason  for  refusing  to  consider  this 
interpretation is that “the Government has not asked us to 
abandon the categorical approach in residual-clause cases.” 
Ante,  at  13.    But  the  Court  cites  no  case  in  which  we 
have suggested that a saving interpretation may be adopted 
only  if  it  is  proposed  by  one  of  the  parties.    Nor  does  the 
Court cite any secondary authorities advocating this rule. 
Cf.  Scalia,  Reading  Law  §38  (stating  the  canon  with  no
such  limitation).  On  the  contrary,  we  have  long  recog­
nized that it is “our plain duty to adopt that construction
which  will  save  [a]  statute  from  constitutional  infirmity,”
where  fairly  possible.  United  States  ex rel.  Attorney  Gen-
eral v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 407 (1909). 
It  would  be  strange  if  we  could  fulfill  that  “plain  duty” 
only  when  a  party  asks  us  to  do  so.    And  the  Court’s  re­
fusal to consider a saving interpretation not advocated by
the  Government  is  hard  to  square  with  the  Court’s  adop­
tion of an argument that petitioner chose not to raise.  As 
noted,  Johnson  did  not  ask  us  to  hold  that  the  residual 
clause  is  unconstitutionally  vague,  but  the  Court  inter­
jected  that  issue  into  the  case,  requested  supplemental 
briefing  on  the  question,  and  heard  reargument.    The 
Court’s refusal to look beyond the arguments of the parties
apparently applies only to arguments that the Court does 
not want to hear. 

E 

Even  if  the  categorical  approach  is  used  in  residual 
clause  cases,  however,  the  clause  is  still  not  void  for 
vagueness.  “It  is  well  established  that  vagueness  chal­
lenges  to  statutes  which  do  not  involve  First  Amendment 
freedoms  must  be  examined”  on  an  as-applied  basis. 
United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 550 (1975).  “Ob­
jections  to  vagueness  under  the  Due  Process  Clause  rest