The US Supreme court ruled in a 7-2 decision Tuesday that attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act does not meet the definition of a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) .

In United States v. Taylor, Justin Taylor was charged with “conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery,” which is robbery that affects interstate commerce. Taylor planned to steal money from Martin Sylvester with a co-conspirator. However when the co-conspirator met with Sylvester, the co-conspirator showed his gun to Sylvester demanding money. Sylvester did not comply with the co-conspirators demand and was fatally shot.

At the trial level Taylor pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and committing a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. §924(c). Taylor appealed the §924(c) conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which vacated Taylor’s conviction. The US Justice Department appealed the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, said “Mr. Taylor may face up to 20 years in prison for violating the Hobbs Act. But he may not be lawfully convicted and sentenced under § 924(c) to still another decade in federal prison. ” Gorsuch stated that, because the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor “used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force,” Taylor did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

However Justice Clarence Thomas described the majority opinion as “narrow categorical approach to §924(c)’s elements clause” in his dissent. Thomas stated that the majority sought to “nullify” §924(c)(3)(B), which covered crimes that had a substantial likelihood of becoming violent. The court already struck down that particular provision in United States v. Davis, where it was found to be unconstitutionally vague.

Alito also dissented from the majority opinion. He said that the majority has “no textual basis” for the finding that “attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a ‘crime of violence’ under §924(c)(3)(A) because it is possible to commit that offense without attempting to use force.” He joined Thomas in commenting that the court “veered off into fantasy land.”