Next, in case 23.825. Delegati versus United States. Mr. Kietam.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Using physical force against another

requires taking some step to bring force into contact with the victim. That can happen

directly as with a kick or punch or indirectly,

such as giving a gentle push to someone teetering on the edge of a cliff. But it does not involve

an offense that can be committed by pure omission, such as failing to render aid to someone

suffering from a natural disorder. The government's attempt to reverse engineer the use of force from the presence of injury

is contrary to logic and plain meaning.

It also runs counter to this Court's instructions that use means active employment, that

physical force is violent force, and that against another means

making contact with another.

The government's appeal to practical consequences, in addition to being irrelevant to interpreting

the statute's text, is similarly unpersuasive.

At the time the Elements Clause was adopted, all or nearly all of the statutes identified

by the Government would have satisfied the residual clause.

And, per the government's hedging here, many will satisfy the Elements Clause, too,

regardless of whether crimes of omission are excluded.

A failure to counteract harm may be morally and legally culpable, and it may merit

severe punishment, but it does not categorically involve the use of violent physical force

against another. I would welcome the Court's questions.

So in your thinking, if you poison someone and thereby cause the death of that person, that is, in your

argument, under your argument, treated differently from withholding critical, say, heart medicine

...