Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

threatened to use force against another person or his prop-
erty.  As the Model Penal Code explains with respect to the
Hobbs  Act’s  common-law  robbery  analogue,  “there  will  be 
cases, appropriately reached by a charge of attempted rob-
bery,  where  the  actor  does  not  actually  harm  anyone  or
even  threaten  harm.”  ALI,  Model  Penal  Code  § 222.1, 
p.  114  (1980).  “If,  for  example,  the  defendant  is  appre-
hended before he reaches his robbery victim and thus before 
he has actually engaged in threatening conduct, proof of his
purpose to engage in such conduct” can “justify a conviction
of  attempted  robbery”  so  long  as  his  intention  and  some 
other substantial step are present.  Id., at 115. 

A hypothetical helps illustrate the point.  Suppose Adam
tells a friend that he is planning to rob a particular store on
a particular date.  He then sets about researching the busi-
ness’s security measures, layout, and the time of day when
its cash registers are at their fullest.  He buys a ski mask, 
plots his escape route, and recruits his brother to drive the 
getaway  car.    Finally,  he  drafts  a  note—“Your  money  or 
your life”—that he plans to pass to the cashier.  The note is 
a bluff, but Adam hopes its implication that he is armed and 
dangerous will elicit a compliant response.  When the day
finally comes and Adam crosses the threshold into the store, 
the  police  immediately  arrest  him.    It  turns  out  Adam’s 
friend tipped them off.

There is little question the government could win a lawful
conviction against Adam for attempted Hobbs Act robbery.
After all, he intended to take property against the cashier’s 
will  by  threat  of  force,  and  his  actions  constituted  a  sub-
stantial step toward that goal.  At the same time, this ex-
ample helps show why attempted Hobbs Act robbery does 
not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause.
Adam did not “use” physical force.  He did not “attempt” to
use  such  force—his  note  was  a  bluff  and  never  delivered. 
And he never even got to the point of threatening the use of 
force against anyone or anything.  He may have intended