Ovalles v. United States

“How did we ever reach the point where this Court, sitting en banc, must debate whether a carjacking in which an assailant struck a 13-year-old girl in the mouth with a baseball bat and a cohort fired an AK-47 at her family is a crime of violence? It’s nuts.” So writes Judge William Pryor, concurring in the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to implement a saving construction and find that a residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act defining the term “crime of violence” is not unconstitutionally vague (as the Supreme Court has held other similarly worded residual clauses to be). Judge Jill Pryor dissenting: It’s up to Congress to save it.

Tags: 2018, Eleventh Circuit, Judge Jill Pryor, Judge William Pryor, Vagueness

Sign up to receive IJ's biweekly digital magazine, Liberty & Law along with breaking updates about our fight to protect the rights of all Americans.