Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015)
Johnson v. United States is a landmark case in the realm of federal sentencing that challenges the vagueness of statutory language within the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
Is the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which defines a 'violent felony' as conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another, unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause?
A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not provide a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits or if it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
The Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague and cannot be applied to enhance sentences.
Johnson v. United States is pivotal for students of law because it reinforces the doctrine against vagueness, demonstrating the Court's vigilance in safeguarding constitutional rights, even in the context of criminal law and federal sentencing. The case illustrates the balance between legislative enactment and judicial interpretation, as well as the limits of legislative power over determining judicial procedures and standards.