United States v. Davis
Issues
Does the phrase a “crime of violence” render 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague?
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), which defines Hobbs Act robbery, and whether the statute is constitutional. In 2015, Davis and Glover were convicted of several robberies under the Hobbs Act robbery statute. The two appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court after the Court in Sessions v. Dimaya held that the similarly worded “crime of violence” definition in the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutional because the text was too vague. The United States government argues that the “crime of violence” language is constitutionally valid because the most appropriate reading of the statute implies analyzing an individual’s case and particularized facts, and not a “categorical approach” which looks at the ordinary expectations of the crime. The government further asserts that constitutional avoidance implies a categorical approach in conformity with congressional intent and the Constitution. Davis and Glover counter that the correct reading of Section 924(c)(3)(B) is a categorical approach as suggested by the text and placement within the statute. They further maintain that upholding the subsection under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance would upset the rule of lenity. The outcome of this case will determine the scope of the judiciary’s power to construe statute construction based on constitutionality and the occurrence of possible conviction reconsiderations for currently incarcerated individuals.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague.
Beginning on June 16, 2014, Respondents Maurice Davis and Andre Levon Glover (“Davis and Glover”) conducted four robberies in and around Dallas, Texas over the course of several days. Brief for Petitioner, United States at 3, 6. In every robbery, the two concealed their identities with bandanas and stole cash and cigarettes at gun point. See id. at 4. Subsequently, the two men escaped in a gold SUV.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Kent Scheldegger, Violence, Vagueness, and Avoidance, Crime and Consequences (Jan. 7, 2019).
- Thomas L. Root, Dimaya Redux at the Supreme Court?, LISA Legal Information (Jan. 7, 2019).