Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–7120.  Argued November 5, 2014—Reargued April 20, 2015—
Decided June 26, 2015 

After petitioner Johnson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of
a  firearm,  see  18  U. S. C.  §922(g),  the  Government  sought  an  en-
hanced  sentence  under  the  Armed  Career  Criminal  Act,  which  im-
poses  an  increased  prison  term  upon  a  defendant  with  three  prior 
convictions  for  a  “violent  felony,”  §924(e)(1),  a  term  defined  by
§924(e)(2)(B)’s  residual  clause  to  include  any  felony  that  “involves
conduct  that  presents  a  serious  potential  risk  of  physical  injury  to 
another.”  The Government argued that Johnson’s prior conviction for
unlawful  possession  of  a  short-barreled  shotgun  met  this  definition,
making the third conviction of a violent felony.  This Court had pre-
viously pronounced upon the meaning of the residual clause in James 
v. United States, 550 U. S. 192; Begay v. United States, 553 U. S. 137; 
Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. 122; and Sykes v. United States, 
564  U. S.  1,  and  had  rejected  suggestions  by  dissenting  Justices  in
both  James  and  Sykes  that  the  clause  is  void  for  vagueness.    Here,  
the  District  Court  held  that  the  residual  clause  does  cover  unlawful 
possession  of  a  short-barreled  shotgun,  and  imposed  a  15-year  sen-
tence under ACCA.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed. 

Held: Imposing  an  increased  sentence  under  ACCA’s  residual  clause

violates due process.  Pp. 3–15.

(a) The Government violates the Due Process Clause when it takes 
away  someone’s  life,  liberty,  or  property  under  a  criminal  law  so
vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it 
punishes,  or  so  standardless  that  it  invites  arbitrary  enforcement. 
Kolender  v.  Lawson,  461  U. S.  352,  357–358.    Courts  must  use  the 
“categorical approach” when deciding whether an offense is a violent 
felony, looking “only to the fact that the defendant has been convicted