Sessions v. Dimaya

James Dimaya (defendant), a lawful permanent resident, faced removal after a second first-degree burglary conviction that immigration authorities deemed a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. Section 16(b)'s residual clause; while his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court in a separate case struck down similarly worded language in another federal statute as unconstitutionally vague, and the court of appeals, relying on that precedent, ruled Section 16(b) was likewise unconstitutionally vague and ruled for Dimaya. The government appealed, arguing the vagueness doctrine should apply less rigorously in this civil removal context than in the criminal case that had struck down the similar provision.