Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

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

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

which  JUSTICE  GINSBURG  joined,  argued  that  a  proper 
application  of  the  provision  required  a  different  result.
See  id.,  at  ___.    Thus,  eight  Members  of  the  Court  found 
the statute capable of principled application.

It is, of course, true that “[s]tare decisis is not an inexo­
rable  command.”  Payne  v.  Tennessee,  501  U. S.  808,  828 
(1991).  But  neither  is  it  an  empty  Latin  phrase.  There 
must be good reasons for overruling a precedent, and there
is none here.  Nothing has changed since our decisions in 
James  and  Sykes—nothing,  that  is,  except  the  Court’s
weariness with ACCA cases. 

Reprising an argument that JUSTICE SCALIA made to no 
avail in Sykes, supra, at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., 
at  7),  the  Court  reasons  that  the  residual  clause  must  be 
unconstitutionally  vague  because  we  have  had  trouble
settling  on  an  interpretation.  See  ante,  at  7.    But  disa­
greement about the meaning and application of the clause 
is not new.  We were divided in James and in Sykes and in 
our  intervening  decisions  in  Begay  v.  United  States,  553 
U. S. 137 (2008), and Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. 
122  (2009).  And  that  pattern  is  not  unique  to  ACCA;  we
have been unable to come to an agreement on many recur­
ring  legal  questions.    The  Confrontation  Clause  is  one 
example that comes readily to mind.  See, e.g., Williams v. 
Illinois,  567  U. S.  ___  (2012);  Bullcoming  v.  New  Mexico, 
564 U. S. ___ (2011); Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 
U. S. 305 (2009).  Our disagreements about the meaning of
that provision do not prove that the Confrontation Clause
has  no  ascertainable  meaning.    Likewise,  our  disagree­
ments on the residual clause do not prove that it is uncon­
stitutionally vague.

The Court also points to conflicts in the decisions of the 
lower  courts  as  proof  that  the  statute  is  unconstitutional. 
See  ante,  at  9–10.    The  Court  overstates  the  degree  of 
disagreement below.  For many crimes, there is no dispute 
that the residual clause applies.  And our certiorari docket