Supreme Court narrows reach of federal gun crime law

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 7-2 decision that will effectively allow a Virginia man to challenge one of his convictions for using a firearm in an attempted robbery and possibly reduce his sentence by a decade. The majority decided that a conviction for attempted robbery under the federal Hobbs Act does fall under the definition of a “crime of violence” and does not render an enhanced sentence when a firearm is used.

‘SENSITIVE’ GUN-FREE ZONES POISED TO BE THE NEXT SECOND AMENDMENT BATTLEGROUND

The case before the justices involved Justin Taylor, who was a “middle-man” marijuana dealer in the early 2000s around the area of Richmond, Virginia, according to court records. He and another man plotted to steal money from a buyer in 2003, which led to his accomplice fatally shooting the man during the robbery.

Taylor was charged with “attempted Hobbs Act robbery,” a federal crime that carries a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. He also faced an additional charge under a federal statute mandating minimum sentences for using a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” Taylor pleaded guilty to both and was given a 30-year sentence, 10 years more than he could have received for just the robbery charge.

While Taylor pleaded guilty, the high court subsequently decided other cases that reduced the scope of a “crime of violence” under the law. He went back to court to argue that his charges no longer qualify and must be vacated.

After the court’s decision on Tuesday, Taylor will be allowed to attempt to reduce his sentence by 10 years.

Gorsuch argued that while Taylor could be sentenced to up to 20 years for his conviction, Congress did “not authorize courts to convict and sentence him to a decade of further imprisonment.”

“Simply put, no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force,” Gorsuch wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito appeared to criticize Gorsuch’s ruling in separate dissents. Addressing the dissent by Thomas, Gorsuch wrote that “not even the prosecutors for whom Justice Thomas professes concern seek anything like that,” according to a footnote in the ruling.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Thomas cited an unusual reference to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, calling the decision an example of how the high court’s “categorical approach” has led the court “on a ‘journey Through the Looking Glass,’ during which we have found many ‘strange things.'”

“I would hold Taylor accountable for what he actually did and uphold his conviction,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “We have reached this point of absurdity only because this Court applies a narrow categorical approach … and has nullified the residual clause that would have captured crimes like Taylor’s.”

<mediadc-iframe data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1655839408589,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1655839408589,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"iFrameEmbedCode":"","_id":"00000181-87b8-d789-a3f7-9ffe3ce60000","_type":"00000161-b425-d761-a563-f7e77e270000"}”>iFrame Object