Monday's Supreme Court Argument on Beckles Completed; Early
2017 Decision Likely
The U.S.
Supreme Court (SC) held its long-awaited argument in Beckles v. US this past
Monday, and the results were positive. Beckles was questioning the
constitutionality of the residual clause in the career offender section 4B1.2
of the guidelines after the Johnson case found an identically worded residual
clause in the ACCA statute unconstitutionally vague.
Both the petitioner and government attorneys
agreed that a favorable ruling on the guidelines vagueness issue would
retroactive on collateral review. Counsel for Beckles argued that the
guidelines language at issue was virtually identical to that of the ACCA
residual clause, which the Johnson case found vague and unenforceable, and implied
that it was up to the SC to interpret the language in a consistent fashion.
Defense counsel
then concentrated on the retroactivity argument (essential to prisoners seeking
relief), citing Welch v. U.S. ,
Montgomery v. Louisiana , and Miller
v. Alabama , which all were found to be retroactive. The
government's attorney then argued that if the court found guideline vagueness
in this case, that it was merely procedural , and hence, not retroactive, but
this argument was met with some skepticism by some of the justices, who were
concerned that a finding on the issue "vagueness" might put all of
the Guidelines rules in jeopardy. The government then argued that since it
conceded the issue of retroactivity, that the vagueness issue could be put
aside for now.
The
government's argument was: "no circuit has actually ruled on retroactivity...(but)
have ruled on vagueness. All except
...the Eleventh have either said vagueness applies to the Guidelines and the
residual clause falls, (or) they have said we accept the government's
concession that vagueness applies."
The
government conceded that many district courts and appellate courts have already
indicated their view on the subject and have already started granting relief to
petitioners, essentially pushing the SC in the direction of retroactivity in
future cases concerning the 4B1.2 vagueness issue.
The
court-appointed amicus counsel argued that since the guidelines system of
discretionary sentencing, despite its argument, was preferable, but he drew few
questions, an indication that his argument was not well received by the
justices.
In
summary, the retroactivity issue looks to be favorably decided, given the
government's concession, and the justices appear to think that it is
substantive rather than just procedural. It appears from the questions that
Beckles will be a favorable decision, hopefully by an outright majority rather
than a plurality, and may well open the door a little wider for even more
vagueness challenges on Guidelines provisions that began with the Booker
holding that the Guidelines were only advisory.