Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

elements clause even if conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act rob-
bery may not.  By this chain of logic, the government rea-
soned,  Mr.  Taylor’s  § 924(c)  conviction  and  sentence  re-
mained sound. 

Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit agreed to hear the dispute 
and sided with Mr. Taylor.  It held that attempted Hobbs
Act  robbery  does  not  qualify  as  a  crime  of  violence  under 
§ 924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires the
government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to
use, or threatened to use force.  By way of remedy, the Court
of Appeals vacated Mr. Taylor’s § 924(c) conviction and re-
manded the case for resentencing in light of his sole remain-
ing  Hobbs  Act  conviction.    In  reaching  its  judgment,  the 
Fourth Circuit acknowledged that other circuits have taken 
a different view, holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery
does  qualify  as  a  crime  of  violence  under  the  elements 
clause.  979  F. 3d  203,  208  (2020).    We  agreed  to  take up 
this case to resolve that question.  594 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II 
The parties may not see eye to eye on the outcome of this
case, but they at least agree on how we should go about de-
ciding it.  To determine whether a federal felony may serve
as a predicate for a conviction and sentence under the ele-
ments  clause,  they  say,  we  must  apply  a  “categorical  ap-
proach.”  We  must  because  the  clause  poses  the  question
whether the federal felony at issue “has as an element the 
use,  attempted  use,  or  threatened  use  of  physical  force.” 
§ 924(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added).  And answering that ques-
tion does not require—in fact, it precludes—an inquiry into 
how any particular defendant may commit the crime.  The 
only relevant question is whether the federal felony at issue 
always requires the government to prove—beyond a reason-
able  doubt,  as  an  element  of  its  case—the  use,  attempted 
use, or threatened use of force.  This Court has long under-