Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–7120 
_________________ 

SAMUEL JAMES JOHNSON, PETITIONER v. UNITED 
STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[June 26, 2015] 

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting. 
The Court is tired of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 

1984  (ACCA)  and  in  particular  its  residual  clause.    Anx­
ious to rid our docket of bothersome residual clause cases, 
the Court is willing to do what it takes to get the job done.
So  brushing  aside  stare  decisis,  the  Court  holds  that  the 
residual  clause  is  unconstitutionally  vague  even  though 
we have twice rejected that very argument within the last 
eight  years.  The  canons  of  interpretation  get  no  greater 
Inverting  the  canon  that  a  statute  should  be
respect. 
construed  if  possible  to  avoid  unconstitutionality,  the 
Court  rejects  a  reasonable  construction  of  the  residual
clause  that  would  avoid  any  vagueness  problems,  prefer­
ring  an  alternative  that  the  Court  finds  to  be  unconstitu­
tionally vague.  And the Court is not stopped by the well-
established rule that a statute is void for vagueness only if 
it  is  vague  in  all  its  applications.    While  conceding  that 
some  applications  of  the  residual  clause  are  straightfor­
ward,  the  Court  holds  that  the  clause  is  now  void  in  its 
entirety.  The  Court’s  determination  to  be  done  with  re­
sidual clause cases, if not its fidelity to legal principles, is 
impressive.