Determining whether the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) should apply to someone who commits a violent crime by inaction presents a challenging problem for the U.S. Supreme Court. The story of Salvatore “Fat Sal” Delligatti, a New York bookmaker who is suspected of having ties to the Genovese criminal family, raises this query.
Delligatti’s intention to hire gang members for a murder attempt was foiled before it could be carried out. However, he was charged with attempted murder and unlawful firearm possession in connection with a violent crime, which resulted in an augmentation of his sentence of at least five years.
Delligatti’s lawyer, Allon Kedem, argued that crimes of inaction do not fit the ACCA’s description of violence. He suggested that the legal definition of “using physical force” requires a direct act against a victim, which he claims did not occur in Delligatti’s case. Kedem compared this to situations where harm results from failing to act, like neglecting medical care, which is generally not seen as violent.
Debating Inaction as a Violent Crime
During oral arguments, the justices explored hypothetical scenarios to understand the potential boundaries of violent crime under federal law. Justice Elena Kagan questioned if passive harm caused by inaction could truly be considered violent, pointing out that “absurd” results might follow if such cases were treated as violent crimes. Justice Neil Gorsuch further explored this concept, asking if intentionally letting someone walk into harm might constitute violence, highlighting the ambiguity around “force” and intent.
Eric Feigin, representing the Justice Department, defended a broad interpretation of the ACCA. He argued that federal law aims to curb gun violence by including severe penalties, even if physical contact doesn’t occur. Feigin noted that in cases where inaction leads to serious harm or death, federal laws should still count such cases as violent, especially when intentional neglect plays a role.
This case underscores a longstanding debate within the Supreme Court about the scope of violent crime under the ACCA. While federal courts apply this clause differently, the Justice Department itself has urged the Supreme Court to address these inconsistencies, showing the importance of consistent legal standards.
A ruling is anticipated by summer 2025, potentially reshaping how courts interpret violent crime under the ACCA. The decision could either reinforce the current approach or introduce new guidelines, particularly for cases involving passive harm. This outcome may affect future firearm-related offenses and define violence in a way that sets clearer rules for both lower courts and the Justice Department.
The post Supreme Court Tackles What “Violence” Means Under Federal Law appeared first on iGaming.org.