Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
16-8777Glover v. United StatesWhether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. (Opinion by )
16-8996Taylor v. United StatesWhether a certificate of appealability should be granted to resolve a circuit split regarding whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. (Opinion by )
17-6628Orozco v. SessionsWhether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), as applied to the definition of an aggravated felony in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, is constitutional. (Opinion by )
16-6392Taylor v. United States(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred when it affirmed the exclusion of the petitioner’s expert rebuttal testimony regarding his future dangerousness in violation of Kelly v. South Carolina, which recognized a capital defendant’s broad due process right to rebut any “implication” or “inference” of dangerousness “from the [government’s] evidence,” and misread the record, which plainly shows that the petitioner’s expert testimony would have rebutted not only the government’s evidence but also its summation arguments; and (2) whether, after the Supreme Court invalidated the definition of a “violent felony” in the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act in Johnson v. United States, the definition of a “crime of violence,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague. (Opinion by )
17-6926Carreon v. United StatesWhether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred when it denied a certificate of appealability regarding petitioner’s claim that the definition of a “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards