Delligatti v. United States: Stretching the Statute

Salvatore Delligatti, an associate of the Genovese Crime Family, orchestrated a murder plot targeting police informant Joseph Bonelli. Delligatti recruited several gang members to ambush and kill Bonelli, providing a loaded revolver and getaway vehicle for assurance. Although this plan would ultimately fail, Delligatti nonetheless reaped the benefits of his scheme: a charge of using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U. S. C. §924(c), along with various other offenses.

Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(A) defines a “crime of violence” as a felony involving the use of physical force against another person. Delligati’s defense: criminal omission–failing to perform a legal duty when physical harm is done–does not invoke physical force and therefore cannot qualify as a crime of violence, according to the law. Furthermore, it was argued, the intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force, as it is impossible to inflict physical harm without the deliberate application of force. 

Delligatti v. United States examines whether the principle of criminal omissions extends to all cases where an offender causes physical harm, even by omission. On March 21st, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the use of physical force against another person. However, the Supreme Court was not tasked with addressing whether omissions can cause harm, but whether harm necessarily involves physical force. In doing so, SCOTUS may have overstepped its bounds and expanded on statutes beyond its intended powers. 

The Majority and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Thomas, delivering the opinion of the Court, held that a person “uses” force when force acts as an instrument, directly or indirectly. Consider someone sprinkling poison in a victim's drink. Although it does not involve physical force in a literal sense, it is considered force because it is an intentional act to inflict harm. Force involves intentionality; after all, one does not accidentally sprinkle poison in their victim’s drink. 

Justices Gorsuch and Jackson, dissenting from the majority opinion, argued that this decision went beyond what Congress intended. When Congress defined a  “crime of violence,” it was not intended to reach omissions. Gorsuch illustrates this by considering a lifeguard watching a child drown; although the lifeguard’s inaction is morally reprehensible, it cannot be considered a crime of violence necessarily involving the use of force, since no physical force was applied. The word “use,” Gorsuch noted, implies an active meaning, one cannot “use” something through inaction. Therefore, force cannot be “used” by inaction. 

Moreover, if the court is concerned with crimes of omissions going unpunished, that fear is misplaced. Existing laws address these concerns, such as parental neglect statutes criminalizing instances in which a parent fails to feed their child. Gorsuch emphasized that, “Congress has exhibited no difficulty addressing omission crimes elsewhere, mentioning them explicitly in dozens of provisions up and down the U. S. Code.” The court, he warned, should resist the temptation to play legislator. 

Judicial Role and Constitutional Limits

Article III of the Constitution explains that the primary function of the Supreme Court of the United States is to settle disputes. This has historically been executed by interpreting laws, rather than expanding on laws. Interpreting a statute involves discerning what the legislator’s intent was trying to express in a law. On the other hand, expanding a statue entails stretching a law’s meaning beyond what the legislature intended. Although the Constitution does not explicitly forbid judicial expansion, such power cannot be assumed either. Certainly, if the framers meant to grant it, it would have been made explicit.  

Implications of Statutory Expansion

Was Salvatore Delligatti guilty of attempted murder? Certainly. He intentionally orchestrated an effort to end a life. However, this was not the question before the court. Delligatti v. United States considers whether a “crime of violence” necessarily involves the use of physical force. The court ruled yes. The court ruled that a felony involving the use of physical force necessarily involves the use of physical force, contrary to its literal definition. In the application of force, action is a necessary condition. In the case of parental neglect, does a parent forcibly starve their child? No, the parent intentionally starves their child, but not forcibly. “Forcibly” necessitates force–action. 

By expanding rather than interpreting congressional intent, the court flirts with broader statutory expansion. The intended purpose of the judicial branch is to settle disputes by interpreting a law, not expanding on it. While Delligatti v. United States won’t send streets into chaos, it does set a precedent for SCOTUS stepping beyond its means. Judges are not legislators, and should not operate as such.

Image Source: Jurist