In the 1989 case Taylor v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to convict a defendant under federal law for burglary, it must be proven that they unlawfully and forcibly entered or attempted to enter a building with intent to commit a crime. The court held that this definition of burglary applies even if state laws define burglary more broadly or differently. This decision arose from an appeal by Alphonso Taylor who was convicted under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which mandates longer sentences for defendants with three prior convictions for violent felonies, including burglaries. However, Missouri's definition of second-degree burglary - one of Taylor's previous offenses - did not require unlawful entry nor specific intent at time of entry as required by ACCA’s generic definition of burglary. Therefore, his conviction was overturned because there wasn't enough evidence proving he had committed what would be considered "burglary" under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Taylor v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the Court's interpretation of "burglary" in relation to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was too broad and inconsistent with its common-law meaning. He contended that Congress intended to use a narrower definition of burglary when it enacted ACCA, one more aligned with traditional common law which required breaking and entering into a dwelling at night with intent to commit a felony. The majority’s broader interpretation included structures like automobiles or booths, which were not traditionally considered within the scope of burglary laws. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's approach as judicial legislation because they essentially created their own generic definition of burglary rather than interpreting what Congress had intended by using this term in ACCA.