Ruling 7-2 in favor of federal defendant, Supreme Court in Taylor rejects broad reading of "crime of violence" for applying 924(c) sentence enhancement

The Supreme Court this morning handed down an opinion in one of the criminal sentencing cases still on its docket, US v. Taylor, No. 20–1459 (S. Ct. June 21, 2022) (available here).  The opinion for the Court is a win for the federal defendant and was authored by Justice Gorsuch.  Here is how that opinion starts and ends:

Does attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualify as a “crime of violence” under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(3)(A)?  The answer matters because a person convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery alone normally faces up to 20 years in prison.  But if that offense qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A), the same individual may face a second felony conviction and years or decades of further imprisonment....

The government quickly abandons the legal theory it advanced in the courts of appeals — and neither of the two new options it auditions before us begins to fill the void.  In § 924(c)(3)(A), Congress did not condition long prison terms on an abstract judicial inquiry into whether and to what degree this or that crime poses a risk to community peace and safety.  Nor did it mandate an empirical inquiry into how crimes are usually committed, let alone impose a burden on the defendant to present proof about the government’s own prosecutorial habits.

Congress tasked the courts with a much more straightforward job: Look at the elements of the underlying crime and ask whether they require the government to prove the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.  Following that direction in this case, the Fourth Circuit correctly recognized that, to convict a defendant of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, the government does not have to prove any of those things.  Accordingly, Mr. Taylor may face up to 20 years in prison for violating the Hobbs Act.  But he may not be lawfully convicted and sentenced under § 924(c) to still another decade in federal prison.  The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

Justice Thomas issued a solo dissent that is as long as the opinion of the Court. It starts this way:

Justin Eugene Taylor and an accomplice pulled a gun on a fellow drug dealer as they tried to rob him.  During the attempted robbery, the victim was shot and killed.  Taylor pleaded guilty to using a firearm during an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which he conceded was a “crime of violence” under 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3).  Taylor made that concession because threatening to shoot someone during a robbery is undoubtedly a violent act.  Yet, the Court holds that Taylor did not actually commit a “crime of violence” because a hypothetical defendant — the Court calls him “Adam” — could have been convicted of attempting to commit Hobbs Act robbery without using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force.  Ante, at 5; see §924(c)(3)(A).

This holding exemplifies just how this Court’s “categorical approach” has led the Federal Judiciary on a “journey Through the Looking Glass,” during which we have found many “strange things.”  L. Carroll, Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass 227 (J. Messner ed. 1982).  Rather than continue this 30-year excursion into the absurd, I would hold Taylor accountable for what he actually did and uphold his conviction.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent

Justice Alito also issued a (shorter) solo dissent, and it concludes this way:

I believe that the Court’s approach and ultimate holding in this case are misguided. I would hold that Taylor committed a “crime of violence” within the meaning of §924(c)(3)(A) and reverse the judgment of the Fourth Circuit below.  But there is a silver lining in the majority opinion. Because the Court assumes — and does not hold — that alternative elements do not qualify as independent elements of a crime for purposes of applying §924(c)(3)(A), the Government remains free to advance the correct interpretation of that provision in a future case.  For my purposes, however, the text of the statute is clear enough to support reversal here and now.  As a result, I respectfully dissent.