United States v. Taylor (20-1459)

argument 20-1459

United States v. Taylor

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 26m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal issue the Court is reviewing in United States v. Taylor?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty fourteen ninety five, United States versus Taylor. Ms. Tablson?

Unknown 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. In Section nine twenty four C, Congress sought to punish some of the most dangerous federal criminals, felons who use guns during crimes of violence. That includes respondent. Indeed, it is undisputed that had respondent or his coactor remembered to take Martin Sylvester's money after fatally shooting him, they would have completed their Hobbes Act robbery and thereby committed a crime of violence. That oversight does not determine the application of Section nine twenty four C. The overlapping and elastic phrases of the Elements Clause use, attempted use and threatened use of force cover the category of force crimes completed and attempted, of which robbery is the quintessential example.

Unknown 0:56

Those words reach attempted Hobbs Act robbery in two independent, mutually reinforcing ways. First, as every Court of Appeals to consider the question other than the Fourth Circuit has determined, the attempted use language captures attempts to commit forced crimes, crimes that, if completed, would also satisfy the Elements Clause. Second, As to attempted Hobbes Act robbery specifically, its elements, substantial step and specific intent, necessarily entail the use, attempted use or at least threatened use of force. That is required by the law of attempt, and it is borne out by the universe of real cases. The possible interpretations of the elements clause that could favour respondent there are two are each unsound either reducing the attempted use phrase to a near nullity or drawing an incoherent distinction between different attempt crimes that can be equally violent, like attempted murder and attempted robbery.

Unknown 1:55

And to make his theory work, respondent would dramatically expand attempt liability. If reconnoitering a store is an attempted robbery today, then Googling a fraud scheme is attempted wire fraud tomorrow. That is not the law. This court should reverse the decision below.

Clarence Thomas 2:15

Um if we don't agree with uh your reading uh applying the categorical approach uh in this case uh consistent with our jurisprudence. Um would it change your case if we could abandon the categorical approach?

Unknown 2:35

Uh of course uh of course Your Honor. I it would. Could

Clarence Thomas 2:38

is there a way to apply uh a conduct based approach to the Elements Clause?

Unknown 2:44

The government has not asked for that in this case. We would be happy, of course, to brief it should the court request further briefing on that question. It is true that the judicial sort of chorus of complaints about the categorical approach has been growing ever louder, but but we have not asked for that here in light of this court's recent decision in Davis.

Clarence Thomas 3:02

Well one final question. I know uh we have to apply our jurisprudence, including the categorical categorical approach. That's what you have to argue. But what did this uh respondent actually do here?

Unknown 3:17

Mr. Taylor participated in an attempted Hobbs Act robbery in which his co actor shot to death the victim, Martin Sylvester. That is the crime at issue here.

Clarence Thomas 3:29

Well, it just seems that if you look at the actual facts and uh you consider your argument there's a bit of a look through the looking glass feel to this case.

Unknown 3:39

I couldn't agree more, Justice Thomas. It's almost like angels dancing on the head of a pin here. Particularly when you consider the fact that no one, not the Fourth Circuit, not any litigant, has identified any real attempted Hobbes Act robbery cases that don't involve the use, attempted use or threatened use of force. This is all really turning on the sort of legal imagination of the Fourth Circuit. And that is what this court has said, the categorical approach should not do. I think

Elena Kagan 4:09

How about the Williams case?

Unknown 4:13

The Williams case is an actual conviction, but it is not, Your Honor, an attempted threat case. If there's a problem with the Williams case, as the government's brief concedes there might be, it's because an it it's an attempted extortion case in which the case is.