Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

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

19 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

Amendment  problem  with  allowing  district  courts  to 
conduct  factfinding  to  determine  whether  an  offense  is  a 
“violent felony” made our attempt to construe the residual
clause  “ ‘an  unnecessary  exercise.’ ”    James,  550  U. S.,  at 
231  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting).  But  the  Court  rejected  my
argument,  choosing  instead  to  begin  that  unnecessary 
exercise.  I see no principled way that, four cases later, the 
Court can now declare that the residual clause has become 
too indeterminate to apply.  Having damaged the residual 
clause  through  our  misguided  jurisprudence,  we  have  no
right to send this provision back to Congress and ask for a 
new one.  I cannot join the Court in using the Due Process
Clause  to  nullify  an  Act  of  Congress  that  contains  an 
unmistakable core of forbidden conduct, and I concur only 
in its judgment.