Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR 

Opinion of the Court 

stood similarly worded statutes to demand similarly cate-
gorical  inquiries.  See,  e.g.,  Borden  v.  United  States,  593 
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 2); Davis, 588 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 10); Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 7 (2004). 

What are the elements the government must prove to se-
cure a conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery?  Here 
again the parties share common ground.  Under the portion 
of  the  Hobbs  Act  relevant  here,  to  win  a  conviction  for  a 
completed robbery the government must show that the de-
fendant  engaged  in  the  “unlawful  taking  or  obtaining  of
personal property from the person . . . of another, against 
his will, by means of actual or threatened force.”  § 1951(b). 
From this, it follows that to win a case for attempted Hobbs 
Act robbery the government must prove two things:  (1) The
defendant  intended  to  unlawfully  take  or  obtain  personal 
property  by  means  of  actual  or  threatened  force,  and 
(2) he completed a “substantial step” toward that end.  See, 
e.g.,  United  States  v.  Resendiz-Ponce,  549  U. S.  102,  107 
(2007).  What exactly constitutes a substantial step is be-
yond the scope of today’s case.  For present purposes, it is 
sufficient to observe that the parties again agree.  They ac-
cept that a substantial step demands something more than
“mere preparation.”  Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 
375, 402 (1905).  The step, they say, must be “unequivocal,”
Reply Brief 3, and “significant,” though it “need not be vio-
lent,” Brief for United States 22. 

To know that much is enough to resolve this case.  What-
ever one might say about completed Hobbs Act robbery, at-
tempted  Hobbs  Act  robbery  does  not  satisfy  the  elements 
clause.  Yes,  to  secure  a  conviction  the  government  must
show an intention to take property by force or threat, along 
with a substantial step toward achieving that object.  But 
an intention is just that, no more.  And whatever a substan-
tial  step  requires,  it  does  not  require  the  government  to 
prove  that  the  defendant  used,  attempted  to  use,  or  even