[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Monday on whether possession of a sawed-off shotgun should be considered a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) [text]. In Johnson v. US [SCOTUSblog materials] the court specifically is considering whether the residual clause in the ACCA is constitutionally vague. The ACCA stipulates that a mandatory 15-year sentence be imposed for anyone unlawfully possessing a firearm who has three prior “violent felony” convictions. However, the vagueness that is being contested comes when the statute attempts to define such felonies. First the statute lists some exemplative crimes such as burglary, arson and crimes involving explosives. Then, in its residual clause, the statute gives a general definition for any felony that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” In Johnson’s supplemental brief [brief, PDF], he argued, “The residual clause is unconstitutional across the board.” However, the government contended in its supplemental brief [brief, PDF] that it is not uncommon for some courts to struggle with statutory language in laws as important as the ACCA, and that there is a test to apply the language set out in the court’s previous cases.

This case is the fifth in seven years [SCOTUSblog op-ed] to address ACCA’s residual clause. In two previous cases Justice Antonin Scalia [official profile] has made suggestions that the clause is indeed vague. However, the majority of the court did not agree with his suggestions. In this case, the court first heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] in November, but ordered re-argument in January. It was when they ordered the re-argument that they directed the parties to address the constitutionally vague question.