In the case of Davis v. United States (2019), the Supreme Court ruled on whether crimes of violence that are part of federal criminal law, specifically those falling under a clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and 18 U.S.C. §924(c), were unconstitutionally vague. The ACCA imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for individuals convicted of possessing firearms if they have three or more previous convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies. Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were charged with multiple counts related to robbery and one count each under §924(c). They argued that their charges under this section should be dismissed because it was too vague. The court held in a 5-4 decision that the residual clause defining crimes of violence in §924(c) was indeed unconstitutionally vague, affirming part but reversing another part of an earlier Fifth Circuit ruling regarding these two defendants' sentences. This decision followed recent precedents where similar clauses had been struck down as being too uncertain to ensure fair enforcement.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Davis v. United States argued that the court's decision to invalidate a criminal statute for vagueness was incorrect. The dissenters believed that the law, which made it illegal to commit a crime with a firearm that has "a barrel less than 18 inches in length," was not vague and could be reasonably understood by ordinary citizens. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous cases on this issue, arguing instead that those precedents supported upholding the law as constitutional. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative consequences from invalidating such laws, including undermining public safety and disrupting longstanding legislative judgments.