Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 43

6 

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

provides  a  skewed  picture  because  the  decisions  that  we
are  asked  to  review  are  usually  those  involving  issues  on
which there is at least an arguable circuit conflict.  But in 
any  event,  it  has  never  been  thought  that  conflicting
interpretations  of  a  statute  justify  judicial  elimination  of 
the statute.  One of our chief responsibilities is to resolve
those  disagreements,  see  Supreme  Court  Rule  10,  not  to
strike down the laws that create this work. 

The Court may not relish the task of resolving residual
clause  questions  on  which  the  Circuits  disagree,  but  the
provision has not placed a crushing burden on our docket. 
In  the  eight  years  since  James,  we  have  decided  all  of 
three  cases  involving  the  residual  clause.    See  Begay, 
supra;  Chambers,  supra;  Sykes,  supra.  Nevertheless, 
faced  with  the  unappealing  prospect  of  resolving  more 
circuit splits on various residual clause issues, see ante, at 
9,  six  Members  of  the  Court  have  thrown  in  the  towel. 
That is not responsible. 

III 
Even  if  we  put  stare  decisis  aside,  the  Court’s  decision 

remains indefensible.  The residual clause is not unconsti­
tutionally vague. 

A 

The  Fifth  Amendment  prohibits  the  enforcement  of 
vague criminal laws, but the threshold for declaring a law 
void  for  vagueness  is  high. 
“The  strong  presumptive
validity  that  attaches  to  an  Act  of  Congress  has  led  this 
Court to hold many times that statutes are not automati­
cally  invalidated  as  vague  simply  because  difficulty  is
found  in  determining  whether  certain  marginal  offenses
fall  within  their  language.”    United  States  v.  National 
Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29, 32 (1963).  Rather, it is 
sufficient if a statute sets out an “ascertainable standard.” 
United  States  v.  L.  Cohen  Grocery  Co.,  255  U. S.  81,  89