United States, Petitioner v. Maurice Lamont Davis and Andre Levon Glover

Summary

The Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague because its text, context, and history compel the categorical, ordinary-case approach that Johnson and Dimaya found incompatible with due process and separation of powers; the government's newly urged case-specific reading cannot be squared with the statute, and the constitutional avoidance canon cannot rescue it because no case has used that canon to expand a criminal statute's reach. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's vagueness ruling, vacated in part as to the remedy, and remanded for consideration of the defendants' rehearing petitions seeking full resentencing, which the government conceded was warranted if the clause is vague. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito (and by the Chief Justice as to all but Part II-C), dissented, arguing that § 924(c) operates on current-offense conduct, is a constitutional garden-variety substantial-risk statute, and should have been saved through constitutional avoidance.