Brief filed: 03/21/2019
Documents
United States v. Davis
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 18-431
Prior Decision
Decision below 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 2018)
Argument(s)
The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance would be unprecedented. This Court has never used constitutional avoidance to broaden a criminal statute. The government’s proposal would broaden the application of the Section 924(c) Residual Clause. This Court never has used constitutional avoidance to interpret identical language in related statutes to mean different things, as the government has proposed here. The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance would reduce the canon to an arbitrary tool with dangerous rule-of-law implications. The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance is irreconcilable with the due process right to fair notice. The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance fundamentally is at odds with the rule of lenity and the principles of fairness underlying the rule. The rule of lenity requires that ambiguous criminal statutes be construed in the defendant’s favor. Application of the rule of lenity is necessary to uphold the separation of powers and protect principles of fairness.
Author(s)
Jonathan L. Marcus, Brendan B. Gants, and Sylvia O. Tsakos, Washington, DC; Michael Leo Pomeranz, New York, NY; Barbara E. Bergman, NACDL, Tucson, AZ
