John Russell Howald was convicted in federal court for a hate crime and for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The underlying incident occurred in March 2020 in Basin, Montana, when Howald fired at least seven shots from a semi-automatic rifle at a woman's home because of her sexual orientation. He made statements indicating a desire to kill lesbians and gays in the town. Although no one was physically injured, the government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2) for willfully attempting to cause bodily injury due to sexual orientation using a firearm, and under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for discharging a firearm during that crime. Howald appealed, arguing that the hate crime statute exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and that his conviction did not qualify as a predicate crime of violence for the firearm charge.
The panel addressed two primary legal issues. First, regarding the Commerce Clause challenge, the court applied the framework established in United States v. Alderman. The court held that the jurisdictional element in § 249(a)(2)(B)(iii)—which requires that the defendant used a firearm that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce—is sufficient to defeat a facial constitutional challenge. This 'hook' creates a minimal nexus to interstate commerce, distinguishing the statute from those struck down in Lopez and Morrison. The court also rejected the as-applied challenge, noting that the evidence showed the rifle and ammunition used by Howald had traveled across state lines, satisfying the jurisdictional requirement. Second, the court analyzed whether § 249(a)(2) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). Applying the categorical approach, the court determined that § 249(a)(2) is a divisible statute. It distinguishes between completed offenses, attempted offenses, and basic versus aggravated offenses. Howald was convicted of the aggravated attempt offense, specifically an attempt to kill. The court reasoned that an attempt to kill necessarily involves a substantial step toward the use of physical force. Distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Taylor, which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence, the court explained that an attempt to kill inherently requires the attempted use of violent force, whereas attempted robbery can be committed by threat alone without reaching the point of force. Therefore, the attempt to kill under § 249(a)(2) satisfies the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A).
The decision affirms the constitutionality of federal hate crime statutes containing interstate commerce jurisdictional elements and clarifies that attempted murder or attempt to kill under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act serves as a valid predicate for federal firearm enhancements. The ruling limits future challenges to § 249(a)(2) based on Commerce Clause grounds when the jurisdictional hook is present and confirms that the specific intent to kill satisfies the force requirement for § 924(c) charges. Howald's sentence remains unchanged.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download