About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 17, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/goveapo0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ______ Research Service High Court Strikes Down Provision of Crime of Violence Definition as Unconstitutionally Vague Updated July 17, 2019 UPDATE: In June 2019, following the publication of this Sideba, the Supreme Court in United States v. Davis held that the residual clause of the crime of violence definition found in 18 U S. C. § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague. 18 U S.C. § 924(c) imposes enhanced prison sentences on criminal defendants who use a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and employs a definition of a crime of violence that is virtually identical to the one found in 18 U S.C. § 16. Citing Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, the Court ruled that the second prong of 18 U S. C. § 924(c) 's definition, which covers a felony that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used, provides no reliable way to determine whether a criminal offense ordinarily carries a substantial risk offorce. The government, which acknowledged that 18 U.S C. § 924(c) 's second prong was unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson and Dimaya, had urged the Court to adopt a case-specific approach that considers a criminal defendant's actual conduct when assessing whether an offense carries a substantial risk of physical force. While recognizing that a case- specific approach would make the substantial risk inquiry less vague, the Court nonetheless declined to adopt that approach, reasoning that 18 U S. C. § 924(c) 's plain language, context, and legislative history indicated that Congress had intended the courts to apply a categorical approach that looked only to the ordinary nature of a generic crime, rather than the underlying facts, when deciding whether an offense carried a substantial risk of physical force under 18 U S. C. § 924(c). The Court's decision in Davis, like earlier decisions in Dimaya, Johnson, and other cases reinforces that Congress may not impose criminal or civil penalties on an individual without specifying the conduct that triggers those penalties, a concept rooted in the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. The original post from May 7, 2018 is below. A non-U.S. national (alien) may be subject to removal and face other serious immigration-related consequences if he has been convicted of an aggravated felony. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines an aggravated felony to include a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year, and incorporates the federal crime of violence (COV) definition found in 18 U.S.C. § 16. Recently, the Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya affirmed a decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10128 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Membersand Committeesof Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most