Today, in Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ---, Case No 15-8544 (2017), the Court held that the advisory Guidelines
are not subject to vagueness challenges under the
Due Process Clause.
This case follows on Johnson, which held the residual clause in ACCA was unconstitutionally vague.
In Beckles, the Court considered whether the same analysis should apply to the identically worded residual clause in the career offender Guidelines (4B1.2). In rejecting any vagueness challenge to the Guidelines, the Court explained, "[u]nlike the ACCA, . . . the advisory Guidelines do
not fix the permissible range of sentences. To the contrary,
they merely guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in
choosing an appropriate sentence within the statutory
range. Accordingly, the Guidelines are not subject to a
vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause."
Justice Sotomayor concurs in the judgment, but explains why the majority analysis is flawed. Her concurrence is worth a read.
