United States v. Taylor

Background

Justin Taylor took part in an attempted robbery that ended when his accomplice shot a victim. He pleaded guilty to the Hobbs Act offense and to using a firearm tied to a crime of violence. The District Court sentenced him to 30 years, adding about a decade under the firearms law. After Davis invalidated the residual clause, Taylor asked a court to vacate his firearm conviction. The Fourth Circuit held attempted Hobbs Act robbery did not qualify under the statute’s elements clause and ordered resentencing.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court used a categorical approach that looks only at an offense’s legal elements. It held attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires an intent to commit robbery plus a substantial step, but does not require proof that the defendant used, tried to use, or communicated a threat of physical force. The Court rejected the government’s three arguments — attempts should count, the substantial-step element implies force, or courts should look to how prosecutions usually proceed — and affirmed the Fourth Circuit.

Real world impact

The decision prevents automatic extra federal firearm time for attempted Hobbs Act robberies unless the statute’s elements require force. Taylor keeps the Hobbs Act sentence (up to 20 years) but not the added firearm enhancement. The ruling settles appeals-court disagreements and forces courts to focus on statutory elements rather than prosecution habits.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented. One urged overruling the categorical approach and preserving broader coverage for violent conduct. The other argued the Hobbs Act’s alternative elements should allow the firearm enhancement in this case.