Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

uncertainty  introduced  by  the  need  to  evaluate  the  riski­
ness of an abstract ordinary case of a crime.  550 U. S., at 
210, n. 6; 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 13–14).  And depart­
ing from those decisions does not raise any concerns about 
upsetting private reliance interests.

Although  it  is  a  vital  rule  of  judicial  self-government, 
stare decisis does not matter for its own sake.  It matters 
because  it  “promotes  the  evenhanded,  predictable,  and 
consistent development of legal principles.”  Payne, supra, 
at 827.  Decisions under the residual clause have proved to 
be  anything  but  evenhanded,  predictable,  or  consistent.
Standing  by  James  and  Sykes  would  undermine,  rather 
than  promote,  the  goals  that  stare  decisis  is  meant  to 
serve. 

* 

* 

* 
We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the
residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates 
the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.  Our contrary
holdings in James and Sykes are overruled.  Today’s deci­
sion  does  not  call  into  question  application  of  the  Act  to 
the  four  enumerated  offenses,  or  the  remainder  of  the 
Act’s definition of a violent felony.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the 

Eighth  Circuit  and  remand  the  case  for  further  proceed­
ings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.