In light of the holding in United States v. Taylor that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), is it debatable among jurists of reason that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is similarly not a crime of violence?

QUESTION PRESENTED In United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845, 846 (2022), this Court held that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Unresolved by this Court, however, is whether aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery, like attempt, is similarly not a crime of violence. There should be little debate aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery can be committed by a defendant short of violence—the knowledge requirement applicable to aiders and abettors need not extend to all elements, including presumably foree—and thus application of the categorical approach would seemingly be dispositive. However, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing its own authority, United States v. Stevens, 70 F.4th 653, 663 (38d Cir. 2023), denied a certificate of appealability. The Stevens court, in contravention of Taylor, eschewed the categorical approach altogether as relates to the defendant’s conduct, pointing to 18 U.S.C. § 2, which renders accomplices liable for the actions of the principal, including as to the firearms enhancement. And, according to the Circuit, that ended the matter. Recently, this Court granted certiorari on a similarly unresolved issue, the application of the formal categorical approach where the crime requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action. Delligatti v. United States, 23-825. Argument in that case is scheduled for November 12, 2024. Each case implicates the application of the categorical approach to instances where the crime can be accomplished short of violence. This Court should similarly take the opportunity to address the application of the categorical approach where the theory of liability is aiding and abetting. Thus, the questions presented are: i In light of the holding in United States v. Taylor that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), is it debatable among jurists of reason that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is similarly not a crime of violence? Does aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery qualify as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)?