The Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, finding it unconstitutional vague. The Court also disavowed the "ordinary case" test employed by the circuit courts to determine if a conviction qualified as a "violent felony" under the residual clause. This decision has important implications for immigration decisions finding convictions to be crimes of violence under 18 USC 16(b). The text of 16(b) and the text of the residual clause are very similar, and circuit courts have often relied on a violent felony determination under the residual clause to determine that a conviction is also a crime of violence under 16(b). Arguably, those cases must be revisited now.
In addition, in a published case (Matter of Francisco Alonzo) issued earlier this year, the Board of Immigration Appeals stated that the ordinary case test should be employed to determine if a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under 16(b). Given the Supreme Court's skeptical assessment of that test in today's decision, the ordinary case test is probably no longer good law.
The full text of Johnson v. United States can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
My blog post about Matter of Francisco Alonzo can be found here: http://www.sabrinadamast.com/journal/2015/6/4/board-addresses-proper-standard-for-evaluating-whether-a-conviction-qualifies-as-a-crime-of-violence