Johnson v. United States
Headline: Orders extra briefing and reargument to decide whether a key phrase in the federal Armed Career Criminal law is unconstitutionally vague, pausing final resolution while briefs and argument proceed.
Holding: The Court restored the case for reargument and ordered supplemental briefs on whether the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, setting specific briefing and argument dates.
- Court ordered supplemental briefs and set Feb–Apr 2015 filing deadlines.
- Case is scheduled for reargument during the April 2015 argument session.
- Focuses briefing on whether the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.
Summary
Background
This order restores a criminal appeal to the Court’s calendar for reargument. The Court directed the parties — the person appealing the case (the petitioner) and the federal government (the United States) — to file supplemental briefs addressing a single question about the Armed Career Criminal Act: "Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague." The order sets specific filing dates and briefing rules.
Reasoning
The core procedural question the Court addressed here was how to proceed before resolving the constitutional issue. The Court ordered the petitioner’s supplemental brief due on or before February 18, 2015; the United States’ brief due on or before March 20, 2015; and any reply brief due on or before April 20, 2015. It also said the time for outside groups to file friend-of-the-court briefs follows Rule 37.3(a), and that the word limits and cover colors for these briefs should match the rules for merits briefs (Rule 33.1(g)). Finally, the Court said the case will be set for oral argument during the April 2015 argument session.
Real world impact
This order does not decide the constitutional question yet. Instead, it focuses the parties and outside groups on whether a particular phrase in the federal Armed Career Criminal law is unconstitutionally vague and schedules more briefing and a reargument. The ultimate decision will come after the supplemental briefs and oral argument, so the legal question remains open for now.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?