United States v. Davis

Background

Two men, Maurice Davis and Andre Glover, were tried for a string of armed gas‑station robberies and related federal crimes. A jury convicted them of Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy, and multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or carrying a short‑barreled shotgun. Those § 924(c) counts added mandatory minimum prison terms that together produced decades‑long sentences. On appeal they challenged the statute’s so‑called residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) defines a “crime of violence” by looking at the generic elements of an offense (a categorical approach) or by focusing on what a defendant actually did (a case‑specific approach). The government urged a case‑specific reading to save the clause, but the Court concluded the statute’s text, context, and history point to a categorical reading. Because that reading forces judges to imagine an offense’s ordinary case and yields unpredictable results, the Court held the residual clause unconstitutionally vague and rejected the government’s proposed interpretation.

Real world impact

The ruling removes the residual clause as a basis for extra mandatory § 924(c) penalties. The Fifth Circuit must decide whether Davis and Glover are entitled to full resentencing; the government conceded a full resentencing would follow if the clause is void. The opinion may affect many past and pending § 924(c) prosecutions and leaves Congress free to rewrite the statute if it wants a case‑specific approach.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kavanaugh (joined by several Justices) dissented, arguing the statute targets current conduct and that risk‑based criminal laws are common; he warned the decision could make prosecuting violent gun crimes harder and alter many sentences.