Twice recently the Supreme Court has chastised the U.S. Department of Justice for stretching criminal laws beyond their rational application in order to secure a conviction. Beyond their consequences for individual defendants, these decisions sent a welcome message to prosecutors that they must not uproot a statute from its clear context in order to get their man (or woman).

Sometimes, however, prosecutors are aided in their overreach by laws that are so vaguely written that it’s not clear exactly what conduct is being targeted. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to one such law, which allowed the government to define illegal possession of a gun as a “violent felony” justifying an extended prison term.

The exceedingly unattractive defendant in this case, Samuel Johnson, is a white supremacist from Minnesota who pleaded guilty in 2012 to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, he was sentenced to a 15-year prison term because he had three prior “violent felonies” on his record. Johnson conceded that two of his previous convictions, for robbery and attempted robbery, were violent felonies. But he disputed the government’s decision to classify a third conviction, for possessing a short-barreled shotgun, as a “violent felony.”

The notion that the mere possession of an illegal firearm is a violent act defies the dictionary and common understanding, and Johnson initially argued — plausibly — that it was not. But Monday’s arguments focused on a broader issue: whether the violent felony provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. The answer is clearly yes.

The law provides a list of crimes that qualify as violent felonies: burglary, arson, extortion or the use of explosives. So far so good. But it also contains a general definition of “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” The question of which crimes are covered by this amorphous provision — drunk driving? fleeing from police? — has long bedeviled the Supreme Court and lower courts, and will continue to do so unless the provision is declared unconstitutional. Meanwhile, as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted, the vagueness of the law makes it hard for defense lawyers to advise their clients about whether they should enter a plea bargain.

As Johnson’s lawyer told the court, the law’s vagueness “is proven by this court’s inability after repeated efforts to discern a meaningful and replicable interpretive framework that will guide lower courts.” It’s time for the court to send Congress back to the drawing board.

— Los Angeles Times

- - -

We were saddened to see the consummate government watchdog Tom Coburn, R-Okla., resign his Senate seat in December due to a recurrence of prostate cancer. Coburn was famed for his annual Wastebook report, the final version of which, in 2014, contained 100 examples of government waste totaling $25 billion.

But perhaps Congress has found someone to take up Coburn’s watchdog mantle. This month, freshman Republican Rep. Steve Russell, also from Oklahoma, released his first “Waste Watch” report. It offers 10 examples of government waste totaling more than $117 million.

Examples include the nearly $700,000 spent by the National Science Foundation to help amateur moviemakers produce “cinematic movies created by manipulating avatars in 3-D computer game worlds,” and the $559,000 the U.S. Agency for International Aid provided over two years to teach Moroccan teenagers “public speaking, team building and conflict mitigation techniques” in an attempt to keep them from becoming violent political extremists (basically, the anti-terrorism version of inner-city midnight basketball programs). Then there are the 6.5 million Social Security accounts still active for people who would be at least 112 years old - on paper, anyway.

A number of military-related items made the list, which should remind Congress the military is no more efficient with taxpayer dollars than the rest of the government, and that there are plenty of ways to reduce defense spending without “endangering our troops.”

Consider the U.S. military’s $456,669 contract to build a training facility for the Afghan Special Police that started disintegrating in the rain after four months because its bricks were made mostly of sand. Depressing as these cases are, it is heartening to know that someone in Congress still has the gumption to uncover and publicize them. After all, spotlighting waste is the first step toward eliminating it.

— The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.)