Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1459 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JUSTIN 
EUGENE TAYLOR 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. 
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 vio-
lence” under 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3).  Taylor made that con-
cession because threatening to shoot someone during a rob-
bery 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 threaten-
ing to use physical force.  Ante, at 5; see §924(c)(3)(A).

This holding exemplifies just how this Court’s “categori-
cal 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).  Ra-
ther 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 dis-
sent.