Law struck down for vagueness in US v. Davis

Davis committed an armed robbery with a gun. The federal government charged him with a crime under 18 USC 922, relating to possession of a firearm and brandishing it during the robbery.

Davis appealed, arguing that his crime was not a "crime of violence" under the meaning of the of the statute. In particular, the statutes "residual clause", which is a catch-all provision designed to include conduct not otherwise specifically mentioned, was argued by Davis as being so unclear so that it should be void.

What are the standards for determining when a statue is clear, and when it is unconstitutional vague? The Supreme Court explores that issue in today's video!