Expanding the Definition of Physical Force: How Delligatti v. United States Redefines Violence
Delligatti v. United States (2025) is a Supreme Court case that concentrates on whether attempted murder can be committed without the use of physical force. Physical force refers to power, violence, or pressure exerted against an individual through a physical act. This paper contends to prove that physical force does not need to be present in a crime that involves bodily injury or death, even if no physical action was taken. “Bodily injury” or “death” can be broadly defined as attempting or causing harm with the intent to injure or kill.
Salvatore Delligatti, a member of the Genovese crime family, was convicted of many charges, including racketeering, illegal gambling, and attempted murder. Delligatti coordinated the attempted murder of Joseph Bonelli, who was suspected of stealing from a Genovese crime family gas station. He hired a crew to carry out the murder, providing them with a gun and car. Their attempt was unsuccessful due to police involvement. Delligatti was sentenced to 300 months in prison and was charged with the use or possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. He appealed, challenging the constitutionality of his charge. He argued it was not constitutional, as the crime was not committed through physical force.
Before reaching the Supreme Court, Delligatti was first sent to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where he was initially charged and convicted. Delligatti tried to dismiss his charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), arguing it did not qualify as a “crime of violence.” His reasoning was based on attempted murder under the violent crimes in aid of racketeering (VICAR) statute. He argued that attempted second-degree murder under New York law could be committed by omission, meaning it did not need to involve physical force. The court disagreed with his argument, ruling that his crime qualified as a “crime of violence.” After the district court rejected his argument, Delligatti appealed to the Second Circuit of Appeals after being found guilty, claiming that his acts did not constitute physical force in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The Second Circuit, however, upheld the District Court’s decision, reaffirming that his crime qualified as a “crime of violence.” After the Second Circuit’s ruling, Delligatti petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that attempted second-degree murder qualifies as a crime of violence under federal law.
A related precedent can be found in the case United States v. Castleman (2014). In 2001, James Alvin Castlman pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence for intentionally or knowingly causing bodily harm to the mother of his child. Years later, he was charged with illegally purchasing firearms, but he challenged the charge, arguing his conviction did not meet the federal requirements because it did not involve “physical force.” He claimed that bodily injury could occur without direct contact, such as through poisoning. However, the Supreme Court ruled that his conviction met the federal definition. The court ruled that even minimal force and offensive touching qualify as physical force in the context of domestic violence. Both cases reinforce the idea that violence isn’t limited to direct physical actions.
These two cases reflect the debate over the interpretation of “physical force” in crime. Although the legal definition of “physical force” has depended on physical proof, Delligatti v. The United States questions whether nonphysical behaviors can be held to the same standard of criminal responsibility. The case expands the definition by establishing that causing bodily injury, even through indirect means, qualifies as physical force. Delligatti v. United States highlights that indirect activities that lead to violent outcomes can also qualify as "physical force," illustrating how the federal court's definition of “physical force” goes beyond acts of violence. Other cases, such as the United States v. Castleman case, also influenced the definition of violence in the law. Such incidents serve as a reminder of the flexibility of laws while maintaining their intended purpose.