Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR 

Opinion of the Court 

and attempted to do just that, but he failed.  Simply put, no
element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that
the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use
force. 

The  upshot  of  all  this  for  our  case  is  clear.    Mr.  Taylor
may be lawfully subject to up to 20 years in federal prison
for his Hobbs Act conviction.  But as the Fourth Circuit rec-
ognized, Congress has not authorized courts to convict and
sentence  him  to  a  decade  of  further  imprisonment  under
§ 924(c)(3)(A).1 

III 
A 
Resisting  this  conclusion,  the  government  offers  three 
principal replies.  We take up first the argument the gov-
ernment presented before the Fourth Circuit and on which
it prevailed in other circuits.  See, e.g., United States v. St. 
Hubert, 909 F. 3d 335, 352–353 (CA11 2018).  This theory
proceeds in the form of a syllogism.  The government sub-
mits that the elements clause encompasses not only any of-
fense that qualifies as a “crime of violence” but also any at-
tempt  to  commit  such  a  crime.
  And,  the  government 
reasons, because completed Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as
a crime of violence, it follows that attempted Hobbs Act rob-
bery does too.

While  the  government  pressed  this  argument  in  the
courts of appeals, it affords it only a passing nod here.  And 
the reason why quickly becomes clear:  The government’s 

—————— 

1 JUSTICE THOMAS concedes that the foregoing analysis is correct under
our categorical approach precedents.  See post, at 3 (THOMAS, J., dissent-
ing).  He contends only that we should overrule 30 years’ worth of our 
categorical approach precedents in order to relieve the “ ‘bind’ ” they place 
on prosecutors.  Post, at 8, 11.  But not even the prosecutors for whom 
JUSTICE THOMAS professes concern seek anything like that.  Nor does he 
articulate  any  plausible  way  to  understand  the  terms  of  the  elements 
clause  without  reference  to  the  categorical  approach.    See  post,  at  14 
(merely “welcom[ing] briefing” on the topic).