James v. United States — Scalia, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, dissented from the Court’s conclusion that attempted burglary categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the residual provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act. He would interpret the residual provision through ejusdem generis and the rule of lenity, conclude that attempted burglary poses less risk than completed burglary, and alternatively find the provision unconstitutionally vague. Justice Thomas, dissenting separately, would have resolved the case on the ground that the statutory sentencing scheme permits unconstitutional judicial factfinding that increases the sentence beyond the lawful jury-authorized maximum.