Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

4 

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

own.  The  Court  now  holds  that  the  residual  clause  is 
unconstitutionally  vague  in  all  its  applications.    I  cannot 
agree. 

II 

I  begin  with  stare  decisis.  Eight  years  ago  in  James  v. 
United  States,  550  U. S.  192  (2007),  JUSTICE  SCALIA,  the 
author  of  today’s  opinion  for  the  Court,  fired  an  opening
shot at the residual clause.  In dissent, he suggested that
the residual clause is void for vagueness.  Id., at 230.  The 
Court held otherwise, explaining that the standard in the 
residual clause “is not so indefinite as to prevent an ordi­
nary  person  from  understanding”  its  scope.  Id.,  at  210, 
n. 6. 

Four  years  later,  in  Sykes  v.  United  States,  564  U. S.  1 
(2011),  JUSTICE  SCALIA  fired  another  round.   Dissenting
once  again,  he  argued  that  the  residual  clause  is  void  for 
vagueness  and  rehearsed  the  same  basic  arguments  that 
the Court now adopts.  See id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 7–8); 
see  also  Derby  v.  United  States,  564  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2011)  (SCALIA,  J.,  dissenting  from  denial  of  certiorari) 
(slip  op.,  at  4–5).    As  in  James,  the  Court  rejected  his 
arguments.   See  Sykes,  564  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  13– 
14).  In fact, JUSTICE SCALIA was the only Member of the 
Sykes Court who took the position that the residual clause 
could  not  be  intelligibly  applied  to  the  offense  at  issue. 
The  opinion  of  the  Court,  which  five  Justices  joined,  ex­
pressly held that the residual clause “states an intelligible
principle  and  provides  guidance  that  allows  a  person  to
‘conform  his  or  her  conduct  to  the  law.’ ”    Id.,  at  ___–___ 
(slip op., at 13–14) (quoting Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S. 
41,  58  (1999)  (plurality  opinion)).    JUSTICE  THOMAS’s 
concurrence,  while  disagreeing  in  part  with  the  Court’s 
interpretation  of  the  residual  clause,  did  not  question  its
constitutionality.  See  Sykes,  564  U. S.,  at  ___  (opinion 
concurring  in  judgment).    And  JUSTICE  KAGAN’s  dissent,