DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings

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

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

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.
The Hobbs Act is a federal law that made it a crime to obstruct or affect interstate commerce "by robbery or extortion" when "induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence and fear."
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that while Taylor could be sentenced for up to 20 years for his conviction, Congress has "not authorized courts to convict and sentence him to a decade of further imprisonment."
Gorsuch appeared to criticize the separate dissents penned by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

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."
In 2003, Taylor engaged in a conspiracy to rob a drug dealer. As a pretense, he arranged a transaction to sell marijuana to a man named Martin Sylvester. But instead of selling the drugs, Taylor and another co-conspirator attempted to steal Sylvester's money. The unnamed co-conspirator, armed with a semiautomatic pistol, shot and killed Sylvester.
Taylor was charged with attempted and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act and was convicted under a federal law which makes it a crime to use a gun in connection with any "crime of violence."
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 360 months in prison. So called "crime of violence" charges trigger increased sentences under federal law. The Supreme Court subsequently decided cases that narrowed the definition of a "crime of violence" under the law.
Taylor returned to court arguing that his charges no longer qualify and that one of his convictions must be vacated.
A district court agreed that the conspiracy charge no longer triggered the increased sentence, but it held that the attempted robbery continued to qualify.
A federal appeals court reversed -- noting that Taylor hadn't actually committed a robbery -- and vacated Taylor's sentence, remanding the case for resentencing.

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html


The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program that allows parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools.

The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life, a trend bolstered by the addition of three of former President Donald Trump's nominees.

"Maine's 'nonsectarian' requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise."
Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal justices dissented.
It is a loss for critics who say the decision will amount to a further erosion of the separation between church and state. Although only one other state, Vermont, has a similar program, the court's ruling could inspire other states to pass similar programs.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said, "today's ruling puts states in a difficult position" if they choose to provide school tuition assistance programs.

"Although framed as a school-choice ruling, it's hard to see how this won't have implications for a far wider range of state benefit programs -- putting government in the awkward position of having to choose between directly funding religious activity or not providing funding at all," Vladeck said.

Writing a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan and in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer said the court had "never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education."
Responding to Breyer's emphasis on "government neutrality," Roberts wrote that "there is nothing neutral about Maine's program."
"The state" he said, "pays for tuition for certain students at private schools -- so long as they are not religious."
"That is discrimination against religion," Roberts said.
"Maine's administration of that benefit is subject to the free exercise principles governing any such public benefit program — including the prohibition on denying the benefit based on a recipient's religious exercise," he added.
Sotomayor, in a dissent of her own, put Tuesday's ruling in context with the court's other recent moves to expand religious liberty, while accusing the court of dismantling "the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build."
The majority, she wrote, did this by "embracing arguments from prior separate writings and ignoring decades of precedent affording governments flexibility in navigating the tension between the Religion Clauses."

"As a result, in just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars," Sotomayor said.
Religious conservatives and organizations praised the ruling, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which filed a brief in the case.
"This watershed Supreme Court ruling opens the door for our advocacy efforts at the state and local levels in key places like New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania and elsewhere," said Maury Litwack, executive director of the Orthodox Union's Teach Coalition.
Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, called the ruling "a great day for religious liberty in America."
"We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country," Shackleford said in a statement. "Parents in Maine, and all over the country, can now choose the best education for their kids without fearing retribution from the government."

so the school one is debatable, so we can get into whether or not we agree or disagree with that.

but the ruling on the gun charge makes absolutely no sense to me.

Right?

"I'm 'bout to rob this place, I don't think anyone is home, should I take a gun?"

SC: "Of course, there's no added penalty... better to be safe than sorry!"

SO he was involved in a crime where his co-conspirator used a gun to kill a man, and that is not considered violence?

In 2003, Taylor engaged in a conspiracy to rob a drug dealer. As a pretense, he arranged a transaction to sell marijuana to a man named Martin Sylvester. But instead of selling the drugs, Taylor and another co-conspirator attempted to steal Sylvester's money. The unnamed co-conspirator, armed with a semiautomatic pistol, shot and killed Sylvester.

Has anyone read the opinion or are you letting the media frame your understanding?

Here's my question... if they killed someone, how come only robbery charges are mentioned? I actually kinda understand this one more than the school one. If they committed murder/manslaughter, then charge them for that. If you can't prove that... well a gun doesn't/shouldn't really change much (other than maybe using it to persuade a jury "dude got shot and jerk#2 was the only one around with a gun"), right?

This is a great example of why these layered gun laws are stupid. The robbery (actual crime) is a given, but we're hung up on whether or not a gun was/was not involved.

I think the real question was "does the Hobbs Act Apply to the circumstances of this case." The SC said no. I tend to agree. There is nothing about breaking a federal law.

Held: 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 that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use
force. Pp. 3–13.
(a) The Court applies a “categorical approach” to determine whether
a federal felony may serve as a predicate for a conviction and sentence
under the elements clause, which poses the question whether the federal felony in question “has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force.” §924(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added). The
relevant inquiry is not how any particular defendant may commit the
crime but whether the federal felony at issue always requires the government to prove—beyond a reasonable doubt, as an element of its
case—the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. This Court
has long understood similarly worded statutes to demand similarly
categorical inquiries. See, e.g., Borden v. United States, 593 U. S. ___,
___.
An attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements
clause. To secure a conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery, the
government must prove that the defendant intended to complete the
offense and that the defendant completed a “substantial step” toward
that end. See, e.g., United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U. S. 102, 107.
An intention is just that, no more. And whatever a substantial step
requires, it does not require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or even threatened to use force against
another person or his property—even if the facts would allow the government to do so in many cases. As the Model Penal Code explains
with respect to the Hobbs Act’s common-law robbery analogue, “there
will be cases, appropriately reached by a charge of attempted robbery,
where the actor does not actually harm anyone or even threaten
harm.” ALI, Model Penal Code §222.1, p. 114. But no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used,
attempted to use, or threatened to use force. Pp. 3–6.
(b) The government’s countervailing arguments fail. Pp. 6–13.
(1) The government first argues that the elements clause encompasses not only any offense that qualifies as a “crime of violence” but
also any attempt to commit such a crime. But the elements clause only
asks whether the defendant did commit a crime of violence as defined
by the statute. Pp. 6–7.
(2) The government next argues that the “substantial step” element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery categorically requires it to prove



Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 3
Syllabus
that a defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical
force. But while many who commit the crime of attempted Hobbs Act
robbery do use, attempt to use, or threaten to use force, the government’s problem is that no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires the government to prove such facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
The government maintains that anyone who takes a substantial step
toward completing Hobbs Act robbery always or categorically poses a
“threatened use” of force because the word “threat” can be used to
speak of an abstract risk. The government submits that the elements
clause uses the term to require only an objective, if uncommunicated,
threat to community peace and order. But when Congress uses the
word “threat” in such an abstract and predictive (rather than communicative) sense, it usually makes its point plain. The textual clues in
the statute point in the opposite direction of the government’s reading.
Moreover, the government’s view of the elements clause would have it
effectively replicate the work formerly performed by the residual
clause. Under usual rules of statutory interpretation, the Court does
not lightly assume Congress adopts two separate clauses in the same
law to perform the same work. See, e.g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection
Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 839, n. 14. Pp. 7–10.
(3) The government’s final theory accepts that a conviction under
the elements clause requires a communicated threat of force and contends that most attempted Hobbs Act robbery prosecutions involve exactly that. But whatever this argument proves, the theory cannot be
squared with the statute’s terms. Congress in the elements clause did
not mandate an empirical inquiry into how crimes are usually committed, let alone impose a burden on the defendant to present proof about
the government’s own prosecutorial habits. Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not categorically require proof of the elements § 924(c)(3)(A)
demands. That ends the inquiry, and nothing in Gonzales v. DuenasAlvarez, 549 U. S. 183, suggests otherwise. Pp. 10–13.
979 F. 3d 203, affirmed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ.,
joined. THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf

you mean this one?

again, doesn't make any sense.

The syllabus is a good place to start but it is not considered as part of the actual ruling, it merely explains it (though it should be in an unbiased way, unlike any of the "news" media).

The majority opinion is the actual ruling and is the binding part. I wanted to read this one this morning when it came out but someone asked me a database question and my day went out the window. I might try to read it tonight, hope to have it done by the weekend if I not.

That's kind of where I'm at. The Hobbs Act was intended to cover racketeering, commerce, unions, etc. I don't see how it ever get used in a case of robbing a drug dealer.

I don't think tax dollars should go to religious schools. Unless all religions are treated equally, as well as non-religious or anti-religious schools get the same. AND I THINK THIS, because it's fun to watch Trumpian heads explode.

PUH-lease.

Which is a great legal argument.

Wow, I guess I should have used purple for those who don't get a little truth in a whole lot of mocking. Legitimate religious schools open to public enrollment should receive funds, but not the privatized schools or schools whose religious philosophy is in the ilk of those TEXAS GOPer ChRiStIaNs and their hate messages. That better for you OR did your head explode? smh.

The deal is people who's kids don't go to public schools pay the same taxes as parents who's kids do. I suppose if there was some accredited school of Satan, then they could apply as well.

BOOM! I guess you pwned me.

At least yer not bitter or anything

Wow, the struggle to understand is real for you, huh?

Isn't that what they ruled? That the state of Maine can't treat one school differently than another? Basically said they have to include all schools in the vocher program or no schools...

No, I don't think that is correct. I think it diminishes the separation of church and state intentionally because the Christian right and Christian Right SCOTUS Judges want to mainstream Christianity again. Christian American numbers have been on a steady decline for decades, IMO rightfully so. Giving them money to indoctrinate kids into Christianity in K-12 is the same as them complaining about libs politically indoctrinating at colleges IMO. I just posted this in the Republicans thread, should have put it here.

Sotomayor accuses conservatives of ‘dismantling’ church-state separation

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court’s most outspoken liberal, accused the court’s six-member conservative majority of eroding the barrier between church and state on Tuesday by striking down a Maine policy that barred religious schools from receiving taxpayer-funded tuition aid.

“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” Sotomayor wrote, dissenting from the 6-3 decision that broke along ideological lines.

“In just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine,” she added, “shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”

Maine law gives school-age children the right to free public education. But because many rural districts lack a public high school, a workaround was devised that allows students to attend nearby qualifying private schools with public assistance.

The Maine law at issue in the case had deemed schools with religious instruction ineligible for the program.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, sided with a group of Maine parents who sued over the law, with the conservative justices ruling that the challengers’ constitutional religious protections were violated.

“Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” Roberts wrote for the majority. “Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”

Sotomayor also joined in part a separate dissent written by fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, whose opinion was joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s third liberal member.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-of-dismantling-church-state-separation/


She nailed how I feel about religious schools getting federal money to indoctrinate people.

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

Just verifying my statement about Christian numbers being on the decline.

Damn millennials messing things up again


BTW you can be a Christians without going to a Church Service every week.

I know and that's all good. Just think it's wrong to fund the propagation of religion with tax dollars. Thoughts and Prayers can do that.

I would add that the majority of church goers tend to begin later in life. I know I wasn't church goer in my 20's.

As far as the vouchers, Ballpeen has a point about taxes. If these vouchers come from tax dollars, then using them for religious private schools is no different than non-religious private schools (charter schools).

Which raises the question, why are any private schools getting government funding?
An argument can easily be made that if you are a private school then you are a private school.

I am sure it has to do with ensuring availability to lower income families.

I almost agree with you. I think it's fine if tax dollars go to religious schools, but then peoples' heads can't explode when a student refuses to pray at morning/meals/whatever... or wants to opt out of religion classes.

Two more opinion days this week, Thursday and Friday. I think there are 13 cases left from this session.

Having a quick read of the Maine case and I see this:



By denying a broadly available benefit to be used for a religious education the state is actually endorsing the idea that religious observers must not use religious views in their own decisions.

Yes, direct testimony under oath by Republicans themselves is nothing more than opinions.

You really don't get it do you? You might want to look at the actual opinions, especially things like who joined an opinion.

Not every opinion onTuesday was a 6-3 "Republican" win.

I'd say that is a bit inflammatory and not how it would work.

Show me how you think it would work. You all want rape babies born. Even if it’s by raped children. So tell me how you think this would play out differently if Texas gets it’s way. Let me guess, the raped child would be given religious council to help her see how her rape baby is god’s will and a blessing.

There's already a thread for the rhetoric about abortion. The court has not issued an opinion in Dodd yet.

j/c...

Thread on SC rulings from today....

NYSRPA vs Bruen is in.

Off to read it.