The U.S. Supreme Court case Sessions v. Dimaya, 2017, centered around the constitutionality of a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA mandates deportation for immigrants convicted of an "aggravated felony," which includes a "crime of violence." James Garcia Dimaya, who immigrated to the United States from the Philippines as a lawful permanent resident in 1992, was ordered deported after two convictions for first-degree burglary under California law. He challenged his deportation order arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague what constitutes a “crime of violence.” In April 2018, by a vote of five to four with Justice Neil Gorsuch casting the deciding vote alongside Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan; they ruled that part of this federal law defining crimes warranting automatic deportations is too vague.

In the dissenting opinion for Sessions v. Dimaya, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito and in part by Justice Kennedy, argued that the vagueness doctrine should not be applied to civil cases such as immigration proceedings because it originates from principles of criminal law. They contended that deportation is a consequence of violating immigration laws rather than punishment for a crime; thus it does not require the same level of scrutiny or protection against vague statutes. The dissent also disagreed with applying Johnson's interpretation to this case since they believe Johnson was wrongly decided and its reasoning should not be extended further. Furthermore, they asserted that even if vagueness challenges could apply outside criminal law context, the provision at issue would still survive as it provides sufficient notice and doesn't encourage arbitrary enforcement.