On Friday, Justice Neil Gorsuch broke away from the Supreme Court majority on the question of whether the failure to act can still be classified as a violent offense.

The Court majority determined that the use of physical force against another individual is a component of the act of knowingly and intentionally causing injury or death, regardless of whether it is accomplished through an act or omission, as Newsweek reported.

In a dissent that was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Gorsuch expressed his disapproval of the majority's decision.

"By looking to the common law today, the Court produces a serious misfit," Gorsuch wrote.

The Disagreement

The distinction between the majority and the dissenting justices is centered on Congress' definition of a "crime of violence."

The majority said in their opinion that the statute "has long been understood to incorporate liability for both act and omission."

Gorsuch, however, asserted that the majority was resorting to "conjecture about implicit congressional purposes."

The Crime in Question

In 2018, Salvatore Delligatti was found guilty of attempted homicide and other offenses. He was sentenced to an additional five years in prison for the use of a firearm during a violent offense.

According to the Court filing, Delligatti is a member of the Genovese criminal family.

Delligatti sought to dismiss the charge of violence, contending that his actions did not satisfy the charge's criteria. He was accused of providing a loaded revolver to gang members in order to murder a suspected police informant.

The Court determined that the law does not provide an exception for cases in which an offender causes bodily injury through omission rather than action.

From the Opinions

"Deliberately causing injury necessarily involves the use of force in the sense relevant here," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.

In the beginning of his dissent, Gorsuch uses an analogy.

"Imagine a lifeguard perched on his chair at the beach who spots a swimmer struggling against the waves," Gorsuch said. "Instead of leaping into action, the lifeguard chooses to settle back in his chair, twirl his whistle, and watch the swimmer slip away. The lifeguard may know that his inaction will cause death. Perhaps the swimmer is the lifeguard's enemy and the lifeguard even wishes to see him die."

Although this behavior renders the lifeguard "a bad man," he clarified that it does not necessarily meet the criteria for a violent crime.

"The Court thinks so. I do not," Gorsuch wrote.