Supreme Court says certain gun crimes are not 'crimes of violence' under federal law

[Polybius]

Source: CNN

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Virginia man who is seeking to challenge one of his convictions for using a firearm in an attempted robbery. The ruling will allow the man to attempt to reduce his sentence by 10 years.

In a 7-2 decision Tuesday, the court decided that a conviction for attempted robbery under the federal Hobbs Act does not fit the definition of a “crime of violence,” and therefore does not trigger an enhanced sentence when a firearm is used.

The ruling will allow the man, Justin Taylor, and other defendants who have received between five and 10 extra years tacked onto their sentences for attempted Hobbs Act robbery to now challenge those convictions and sentences.

Gorsuch appeared to criticize the separate dissents penned by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.



Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/taylor-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

[TwilightZone]

1. Gorsuch's criticisms of Alito and Thomas are actually kind of funny.

He basically called out Alito and Thomas.

"Addressing a contention made by Thomas, Gorsuch wrote in a footnote that “not even the prosecutors for whom Justice Thomas professes concern seek anything like that.”

Alito, Gorsuch said, put forward an argument that the parties had “not whispered a word about.” "

[ck4829]

2. But the guy who backed out from a plot against Kavanaugh still counts though, right?

[speak easy]

3. I have no clue about the technicalitiess of the Hobbs Act,

but if Thomas and Alito are in dissent, it is likely to be a sound decision.

[TwilightZone]

5. That was exactly my thought.

Their dissents don't even have any relevance, as Gorsuch noted.

[MarcA]

7. +1000 n/t

[cbabe]

4. Tear down that fence.

[markie]

8. I'm not happy

with the Supreme Court right now

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The CNN report doesn't make sense to me

It quotes the Hobbs Act as being about "robbery or extortion" when "induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence and fear." This clearly applies here.

But it then says "the Supreme Court subsequently decided cases that narrowed the definition of a "crime of violence" under the law". In what way? They had a gun, and clearly threatened violence (the victim was killed by the other robber). Why can the Supreme Court alter the meaning of the Hobbs Act?

[Igel]

10. Read the act again.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951

Note that I haven't read the opinion. Also no JD. But literate, most days.

... “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property ...

...The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another ...

The plaintiff was accused of "attempted" something-or-other.

If I take your personal property unlawfully or obtain it through (coerced) consent, it's not attempted. It's done. Text doesn't say "attempted ... taking" or "obtained obtaining" (note to self: is "obtention" a word?)

If I use "actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company ..." but don't actually take the property, it's not obtaining. BTW, that ellipsis removed "at the time of the taking or obtaining". If there was no taking or obtaining, that provision doesn't apply. But since "that provision" is the entire Act....

Narrow construal. All that's needed is for the plain meaning of the text to be what you work off of; working off of "intent" when the plain text is clear seems strained.

I'd have voted to acquit on this charge (at least) had I been provided the text of the law, the charge, and been seated as a juror.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Part (a) of that includes "attempts" at robbery

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(my italics)

[sl8]

12. The decision says that it doesn't meet the requirements for Section 924(c) conviction/sentencing

He was convicted under the Hobbs Act and §924(c). SCOTUS overturned the latter.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924
18 U.S. Code § 924 - Penalties


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
United States v. Taylor decision (pdf)

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. OK; this seems to rest on *all* the possible convictions under the Hobbs Act, not these particular..

... events. What the judgement says is that the circumstances of this particular crime (eg that the victim was shot and killed) don't matter at all; the question of whether section 924(c) can be used to increase the penalty for a Hobbs Act conviction requires looking at all possible convictions under the Hobbs Act. And since the Hobbs Act can be used to convict someone who planned a robbery, but never got as far as threatening anyone (eg if the police had been tipped off and arrested him first), then no conviction under the Hobbs Act qualifies.

[sl8]

14. Well put. nt

[ck4829]

15. ...

[BlueIdaho]

16. How many more deaths to these Talibangelicals want on their hands?

Enough already - these black robes are making America a violent shithole.

[Polybius]

17. It was a 7-2 decision with all three liberals in the majority

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

[BlueIdaho]

18. Oops!

Guess I didn’t read carefully enough - sorry for going off half cocked.