Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

10 

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

of violence under §924(c).  Tsarnaev and his brother inten-
tionally detonated bombs that killed three people, including 
an 8-year-old, and injured hundreds more.  See id., at ___– 
___ (slip op., at 2–3).  Yet, the categorical-approach prece-
dents led the First Circuit to the admittedly “counterintui-
tive” conclusion that federal arson resulting in death aris-
ing  from  a  terrorist  bombing  was  not  a  crime  of  violence. 
Tsarnaev, 968 F. 3d, at 102.  The residual clause had been 
nullified, id., at 99, and the First Circuit held that federal 
arson did not satisfy the elements clause because it theoret-
ically  could  have  been  committed  recklessly,  id.,  at  102,2 
which, we have held in the ACCA context, renders a crime 
outside the elements clause, see Borden, 593 U. S., at ___– 
___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 7–8). 
  Finally, in United States v. Ledbetter, 929 F. 3d 338 (CA6
2019), the Sixth Circuit vacated two convictions under 18 
U. S. C. §924(j), which criminalizes “caus[ing] the death of 
a person through the use of a firearm” “in the course of a 
violation of ” §924(c).  929 F. 3d, at 360–361.  The two de-
fendants  were  associated  with  a  gang  called  the  “Short 
North Posse.”  Id., at 359.  One belonged to a subunit of the 
gang, appropriately named the “ ‘Homicide Squad,’ ” which
“specializ[ed]  in  murders  and  robberies.”  Id.,  at  345.  In 
August  2007,  they  joined  a  team  of  gang  members  who 
broke into a home and shot a victim to death.  Id., at 359. 
Section 924(c)’s residual clause would have covered the de-
fendants’ conduct, given that there is obviously a “substan-
tial risk that physical force” would be “used in the course 
of ” a gangland home-invasion murder.  §924(c)(3)(B).  But 
Davis had nullified that clause, and the Government con-
ceded  that  conspiracy  to  commit  Hobbs  Act  robbery—the 

—————— 

2 See United States v. Moore, 802 Fed. Appx. 338, 340–342 (CA10 2020)
(federal arson not a crime of violence even when the defendant ignited a 
homemade bomb during an attempt to blow up a shopping mall).