Whether 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) is violated only by forcibly assaulting a federal officer, or may be violated by forcibly resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a federal officer without assaulting anyone

This case presents a square circuit conflict over an important and recurrent question of substantive federal criminal law that implicates the safety of federal officers in the performance of their official duties . In the proceedings below, petitioner argued that 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) because it can be committed without committing assault, and thus does not require the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another .” Applying binding circuit precedent , the Tenth Circuit rejected petitioner’s argumen t, reaffirming its stance that assault is an element of every § 111( b) conviction . That holding deepened an intractable 4-3 circuit split. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits hold that 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a) and (b) can be violated without committing assault. In contrast, the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have narrowed 18 U.S.C. § 111 to always require assault as an element . In circuits where the question is open or has been decided in its favor, the United States brings prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 111 for non -assaultive conduct. The question presented is: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) is violated only by forcibly assaulting a federal officer, or may be violated by forcibly resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a federal officer without assault ing anyone . (ii)