United States v. Davis is a Supreme Court case from 2019 that dealt with the constitutionality of the federal government’s use of a law known as the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The ACCA is a federal law that imposes harsher sentences on individuals who have been convicted of certain felonies and who have three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the ACCA’s definition of a “violent felony” was unconstitutionally vague. The Court held that the ACCA’s definition of a “violent felony” was not unconstitutionally vague. The Court reasoned that the ACCA’s definition of a “violent felony” was sufficiently clear and provided sufficient guidance to individuals who might be subject to the ACCA’s harsher sentences. The Court also held that the ACCA’s definition of a “violent felony” was not unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court reasoned that the ACCA’s definition of a “violent felony” was sufficiently narrow and did not sweep too broadly. In sum, the Supreme Court held that the ACCA’s definition of a “violent felony” was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The Court’s decision in this case affirmed the constitutionality of the ACCA and allowed the federal government to continue to impose harsher sentences on individuals who have been convicted of certain felonies and who have three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Davis, Justice Sotomayor argued that Congress had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a substantial connection between the federal tax code and interstate commerce. She noted that while there was some evidence of an effect on interstate commerce, it was too tenuous to be considered substantial enough for Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause to apply in this case. Furthermore, she argued that if Congress were allowed to use its power in such a way without providing more concrete proof of a substantial effect on interstate commerce, then it would open up an avenue for them to regulate any activity they wished regardless of whether or not it actually affected interstate commerce. In conclusion, Justice Sotomayor asserted that allowing this type of regulation by Congress would set a dangerous precedent and should therefore be rejected by the court as unconstitutional.