Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

But  what  does  that  prove?  Put  aside  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Taylor  has  identified  cases  in  which  the  government  has
apparently convicted individuals for attempted Hobbs Act
robbery without proving a communicated threat.  See, e.g., 
United  States  v.  Williams,  531  Fed. Appx.  270,  271–272 
(CA3 2013).  Put aside the oddity of placing a burden on the
defendant to present empirical evidence about the govern-
ment’s own prosecutorial habits.  Put aside, too, the practi-
cal  challenges  such  a  burden  would  present  in  a  world 
where  most  cases  end  in  plea  agreements,  and  not  all  of 
those cases make their way into easily accessible commer-
cial databases.  See J. Turner, Transparency in Plea Bar-
gaining, 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 973, 974, 978–981 (2021). 

An even more fundamental and by now familiar problem 
lurks  here.  The  government’s  theory  cannot  be  squared 
with the statute’s terms.  To determine whether a federal 
felony qualifies as a crime of violence, § 924(c)(3)(A) doesn’t 
ask whether the crime is sometimes or even usually associ-
ated with communicated threats of force (or, for that mat-
ter,  with  the  actual  or  attempted  use  of  force).    It  asks 
whether  the  government  must  prove,  as  an  element  of  its 
case, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.

Maybe that is the test the statute presupposes, the gov-
ernment answers, but this Court’s case law requires its pro-
posed  empirical  study  all  the  same.    Notice,  though,  the 
move  implicit  here.  After  previously  admitting  that  we 
must employ a categorical approach when interpreting the 
reach  of  § 924(c)(3)(A),  the  government  effectively  back-
tracks.    Instead  of  looking  to  the  elements  of  attempted 
Hobbs Act robbery, the government now says that a defend-
ant must present evidence about how his crime of conviction
is normally committed or usually prosecuted.  If this admit-
tedly atextual theory seems doubtful on its face, a close look 
at  the  case  the  government  invokes  does  not  improve  the
picture.

The  government  points  to  Gonzales  v.  Duenas-Alvarez,