Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

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

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

C 

When  a  statute’s  constitutionality  is  in  doubt,  we  have 
an obligation to interpret the law, if possible, to avoid the
constitutional  problem.  See,  e.g.,  Edward  J.  DeBartolo 
Corp.  v.  Florida  Gulf  Coast  Building  &  Constr.  Trades 
Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988).  As one treatise puts it,
“[a]  statute  should  be  interpreted  in  a  way  that  avoids
placing  its  constitutionality  in  doubt.”  A.  Scalia  &  B. 
Garner,  Reading  Law:  The  Interpretation  of  Legal  Texts 
§38, p. 247 (2012).  This canon applies fully when consider­
ing vagueness challenges.  In cases like this one, “our task 
is  not  to  destroy  the  Act  if  we  can,  but  to  construe  it,  if 
consistent with the will of Congress, so as to comport with 
constitutional limitations.”  Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter 
Carriers,  413  U. S.  548,  571  (1973);  see  also  Skilling  v. 
United  States,  561  U. S.  358,  403  (2010).    Indeed,  “ ‘[t]he
elementary  rule  is  that  every  reasonable  construction 
must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from uncon­
stitutionality.’ ”  Id., at 406 (quoting Hooper v.  California, 
155  U. S.  648,  657  (1895);  emphasis  deleted);  see  also 
Ex parte  Randolph,  20  F. Cas.  242,  254  (No.  11,558)  (CC 
Va. 1833) (Marshall, C. J.).

The  Court  all  but  concedes  that  the  residual  clause 

would  be  constitutional  if  it  applied  to  “real-world  con­
duct.”  Whether  that  is  the  best  interpretation  of  the  re­
sidual clause is beside the point.  What matters is whether 
it  is  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  statute.    And  it 
surely is that.

First,  this  interpretation  heeds  the  pointed  distinction 
that  ACCA  draws  between  the  “element[s]”  of  an  offense 
and “conduct.”  Under §924(e)(2)(B)(i), a crime qualifies as 
a  “violent  felony”  if  one  of  its  “element[s]”  involves  “the 
use,  attempted  use,  or  threatened  use  of  physical  force 
against  the  person  of  another.”  But  the  residual  clause, 
which 
subsection, 
§924(e)(2)(B)(ii),  focuses  on  “conduct”—specifically,  “con­

appears 

next 

very 

the 

in