In United States v. Taylor (2022), the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under federal firearm sentencing law. Because a person can be convicted of the attempt based on preparatory steps alone, the offense does not require proof of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. That means it cannot trigger the mandatory consecutive prison terms in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which apply only when a firearm is used during a “crime of violence.”
What Was at Stake for Justin Taylor
Justin Taylor and an accomplice planned to rob a drug dealer. During the attempted robbery, Taylor’s accomplice shot and killed the victim.1Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Taylor Federal prosecutors charged Taylor with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and with using a firearm during a crime of violence under § 924(c).
He was sentenced to 360 months in federal prison: 240 months for the Hobbs Act conspiracy and a consecutive 120 months for the firearm charge.2Justia. United States v. Taylor Without the § 924(c) enhancement, his maximum exposure was 20 years. The extra decade rode entirely on whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence. The Fourth Circuit said no and vacated that conviction. The Supreme Court agreed to decide the question.
Why Only the Elements Clause Was Left
Section 924(c) originally defined “crime of violence” two ways. The elements clause covers any felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 924 – Penalties The residual clause swept in any felony that “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force” might be used.
In 2019, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis. Judges could no longer be asked to estimate violence risk in a hypothetical ordinary case. That left the elements clause as the only surviving definition, and it is the clause the government had to satisfy in Taylor’s case.
Why Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery Does Not Require Force
The Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to commit or attempt robbery that affects interstate commerce.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1951 – Interference With Commerce by Threats or Violence The statute defines robbery as taking property from another by actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury. Both sides agreed a completed Hobbs Act robbery satisfies the elements clause.
The attempt is different. To convict, the government must prove two things: the defendant intended to commit the robbery, and the defendant took a substantial step toward completing it. A substantial step can be driving to the target’s location, gathering tools, or lying in wait. None of those actions require using or threatening force. A defendant can be convicted of the attempt on preparatory conduct that never gets near a physical confrontation.
That is the gap. Completed robbery bakes force into its definition. Attempted robbery does not.
Why the Actual Shooting Did Not Matter
Federal courts use the categorical approach to decide whether an offense qualifies as a crime of violence. Judges look only at what the prosecution has to prove for a conviction, not at what the defendant actually did.5United States Sentencing Commission. Primer on Categorical Approach If the minimum conduct needed to break the law doesn’t involve force, the offense fails the test.
This is where Taylor’s case tripped a lot of intuitions. A person was killed. Under a facts-based analysis, calling the offense violent would be easy. But the categorical approach ignores those facts and asks whether every conviction under the same statute necessarily involves force. Because a substantial step can be entirely nonviolent, attempted Hobbs Act robbery fails the elements clause no matter what happened in any particular case. The trade-off is deliberate: courts sacrifice case-by-case fit for consistency, so a defendant’s sentence enhancement doesn’t turn on which judge hears the case.
What the Ruling Removes From Sentencing
Justice Gorsuch wrote for a seven-Justice majority. The Court 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 proof of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.1Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Taylor Taylor’s 120-month consecutive sentence was vacated and the case was sent back for resentencing.2Justia. United States v. Taylor
The § 924(c) firearm enhancements that can no longer attach to attempted Hobbs Act robbery are:
- At least 5 years consecutive for possessing or carrying a firearm, under § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)
- At least 7 years consecutive for brandishing a firearm, under § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)
- At least 10 years consecutive for discharging a firearm, under § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)
These mandatory terms are stacked on top of the sentence for the underlying offense and cannot run concurrently.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 924 – Penalties After Taylor, none of them can be layered onto an attempted Hobbs Act robbery charge.
What the Ruling Does Not Change
Completed Hobbs Act robbery is untouched. The Court explicitly noted that a completed robbery still satisfies the elements clause, and the government and Taylor never disputed that point. Prosecutors can still seek § 924(c) enhancements on completed robbery counts.
The decision also does not strip the crime-of-violence label from every federal attempt statute. The reasoning turns on the specific gap between what a completed Hobbs Act robbery requires and what its attempt requires. Attempts tied to offenses that inherently demand force, such as attempted murder in aid of racketeering, have been treated differently by federal courts applying the same categorical analysis.6United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. United States v. Lassiter Whether a given attempt qualifies still depends on the statutory elements of that specific offense.
Relief for People Already Serving These Sentences
Federal prisoners whose § 924(c) sentences were built on attempted Hobbs Act robbery as the underlying crime of violence may be able to challenge those sentences. The main vehicle is a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which lets a federal prisoner argue the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or federal law.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 2255 – Federal Custody; Remedies on Motion Attacking Sentence
Timing is the first hurdle. A § 2255 motion generally must be filed within one year. When the motion relies on a newly recognized right from the Supreme Court, the one-year clock can start on the date the Court announced the right, provided that right has been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 2255 – Federal Custody; Remedies on Motion Attacking Sentence Some federal courts have treated Taylor as potentially triggering a new limitations window for prisoners convicted specifically of attempted Hobbs Act robbery predicates. Prisoners whose § 924(c) convictions rest on completed Hobbs Act robbery are not helped by the ruling.
Second or successive § 2255 motions require advance permission from a federal court of appeals, and the standards are demanding. Missing the one-year window or skipping a procedural step can permanently bar a claim regardless of its merit. Anyone in that position should get the filing calendar and the procedural posture reviewed by counsel before the year runs.