Page:Denard Stokeling v. United States.pdf/28

Rh Taylor, 495 U. S., at 582, is entirely consistent with paring back the statute’s sweep with regard to robbery specifically. I may wish to expand the contents of my refrigerator, but that does not mean that I will buy more of every single item that is currently in it the next time that I go shopping. Here, the ACCA–with its (new, generalized) elements clause, its (augmented) enumerated clause, and (until recently) its highly capacious residual clause–undeniably expanded the precursor statute’s bare enumeration of robbery and burglary, regardless of how many robbery statutes qualify as predicates specifically under the elements clause.

Fourth, even assuming that Congress wanted robbery to remain largely encompassed by the ACCA despite deleting the word from the precursor statute, that intent is fully consistent with properly applying Johnson here. The majority, by focusing on the elements clause, ignores the residual clause, which–until it was declared unconstitutional in 2015–provided a home for many crimes regardless of whether they included an element of violent “physical force.” Hewing to a proper reading of Johnson, in