Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR 

Opinion of the Court 

times  called  the  elements  clause.    That  clause  covers  of-
fenses that “ha[ve] as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or prop-
erty of another.”  The second definition, located next door in 
§ 924(c)(3)(B) and often referred to as the residual clause,
encompasses  offenses  that  “by  [their]  nature,  involv[e ]  a
substantial risk that physical force . . . may be used.” 

Before  the  District  Court,  the  government  argued  that
Mr. Taylor’s Hobbs Act offense qualified as a “crime of vio-
lence” under these definitions.  And at that point, Mr. Tay-
lor did not disagree, choosing instead to plead guilty to one
count each of violating the Hobbs Act and § 924(c).  For his 
crimes, the District Court sentenced Mr. Taylor to 30 years 
in  federal  prison—a  decade  more  than  he  could  have  re-
ceived for his Hobbs Act conviction alone. 

Later, Mr. Taylor filed a federal habeas petition.  In it, he 
did not challenge his Hobbs Act conviction.  Instead, he fo-
cused  on  § 924(c).    Mr.  Taylor  submitted  that  his  § 924(c)
conviction  was  predicated  on  his  admission  that  he  had 
committed  both  conspiracy  to  commit  Hobbs  Act  robbery
and attempted Hobbs Act robbery.  And, Mr. Taylor argued,
neither of those offenses continued to qualify as a “crime of 
violence” after United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___ (2019). 
In Davis, this Court held § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause un-
constitutionally vague, and we refused to enforce a convic-
tion  and  sentence  premised  on  its  terms.    Id.,  at  ___–___ 
(slip op., at 24–25).  In his habeas proceeding, Mr. Taylor 
asked the court to apply Davis retroactively and vacate his 
own § 924(c) conviction and sentence.

The government opposed Mr. Taylor’s petition.  In doing 
so, it did not seek to revisit Davis or oppose its retroactive 
application to Mr. Taylor’s case.  Instead, the government
observed that Davis declared only the residual clause un-
constitutional; even today the elements clause remains in
force.  And, the government argued, the crime of attempted 
Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the