In Johnson, government lawyers argued striking down the relevant section of the ACCA would make a number of other federal laws unconstitutionally vague — including the law at issue in Dimaya. “But didn’t the government argue when Johnson was before us, that if the ACCA residual clause was invalid, then 16(b) would be vulnerable because it was subject to the same central objection,” Ginsburg asked deputy solicitor general Edwin Kneedler, the lawyer arguing for the government in the case. Joshua Rosenkranz, arguing against the government, pointed out the Johnson ruling has spawned many other challenges to laws with similar language, many of which the Supreme Court has been asked to resolve.