Jones v. United States

Background

A person who had appealed a federal sentence asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees. The Court granted the petition for review, vacated the lower court’s judgment, and sent the case back to the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of a recent decision called Johnson.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a part of a federal repeat-offender law — called the residual clause — is too vague to justify enhanced sentences. The Supreme Court held the petition and then, after Johnson was decided, vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case so the appeals court can reconsider the matter under Johnson’s guidance. The Court noted that it followed the Solicitor General’s recommendation in holding many similar petitions pending Johnson.

Real world impact

On remand, the appeals court must re-evaluate whether this person’s earlier convictions still qualify to increase a federal sentence under the challenged clause. The Supreme Court’s action is procedural and does not itself decide whether the person is entitled to relief; the outcome depends on the lower court’s reconsideration and any procedural issues that court may find.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito wrote separately to explain that vacating and remanding does not signal any view about the person’s entitlement to relief, and he emphasized that the Court did not distinguish cases that might get relief from those that might not for procedural reasons.