Can you fight Hobbs Act charges by challenging federal jurisdiction?

Fighting Hobbs Act Charges by Challenging Federal Jurisdiction

The Hobbs Act is a pretty scary-sounding federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. So if you’re facing charges under this act, it’s understandable to feel overwhelmed. But don’t lose hope! There are ways you can fight back, including by challenging whether the federal government even has jurisdiction to charge you in the first place. Keep reading and I’ll walk you through some of the main strategies and defenses people use when dealing with Hobbs Act charges.

What is the Hobbs Act?

First things first, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page about what exactly the Hobbs Act is. In a nutshell, this federal law makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or otherwise affect interstate commerce through robbery or extortion. The law defines robbery as taking property from someone by force or threatening force. Extortion involves obtaining property through fear of economic harm.

The “interstate commerce” part is key — for the feds to have jurisdiction, the alleged robbery or extortion has to somehow impact interstate business, trade, transportation, etc. The impact doesn’t have to be huge either…even a minor effect is enough. But more on that later!

Penalties for Breaking the Hobbs Act

As you can imagine, the penalties for Hobbs Act violations are pretty steep. It’s a felony charge, punishable by:

• Up to 20 years in prison
• Fines up to $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for organizations
• Up to 3 years of “supervised release” (federal version of parole)

Those are some pretty terrifying numbers! But that’s just for one violation – charges can stack up if there are multiple instances of alleged robbery or extortion. Needless to say, these severe penalties give people accused under the Hobbs Act good reason to fight the charges however they can.

Challenging the Feds’ Jurisdiction

One of the main strategies for defending against Hobbs Act charges is to challenge whether the federal government even has jurisdiction to bring charges against you. For the feds to step in, your case has to involve interstate commerce – so one tactic is to argue there is no effect on interstate business, trade, transportation, etc.

This can be a tricky argument to make, because the courts have interpreted the interstate commerce requirement very broadly. The impact doesn’t have to be huge – even a minor or indirect effect could be enough. For example, if a business owner was extorted for money, the courts may say this depleted assets that would have been used to purchase goods in interstate commerce. But there are still ways to assert lack of federal jurisdiction, which I’ll explain more below.

The “Depletion of Assets” Theory

One way the feds try to establish an interstate commerce connection is through the “depletion of assets” theory. Basically, they argue that even if the actual robbery or extortion was local in nature, it still affected interstate commerce by depleting the assets of a business or individual who engages in interstate transactions.

For instance, in United States v. Zeigler, the owners of a tavern were robbed of $600. The government claimed this depleted the assets available for purchasing beer from out-of-state distributors. The court agreed, finding an adequate interstate commerce connection based on the depletion theory.

But defense attorneys have managed to overcome this argument in some cases, by showing the amount of assets “depleted” was minor or incidental. It takes some detailed financial analysis – but it can be done!

No “Realistic Probability” of an Effect

Another counterargument is that while the alleged crime may have hypothetically impacted interstate commerce under the right conditions, there was no “realistic probability” of this actually occurring.

For example, in United States v. Perrotta, the defendant was accused of extorting $3,000 a month from a local construction company. The government claimed this depleted assets used to purchase out-of-state supplies. But the company did mostly local business, and had sufficient reserves where the $3,000 payments had no actual impact on interstate purchases.

The court agreed the interstate commerce element wasn’t met, since there was no “realistic probability” of affecting interstate commerce under the company’s specific financial circumstances.

Other Arguments Against Federal Jurisdiction

Here are some other angles defense lawyers use to fight federal jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act:

• The alleged robbery or extortion was against an individual, not a company engaged in interstate commerce.
• The victim company does not actively engage in interstate commerce, only intrastate sales and transactions.
• The effect on interstate commerce was so minor or attenuated that federal prosecution is not warranted.

The key is scrutinizing the specific facts to find weaknesses in the government’s arguments about how interstate business or commerce were impacted. This area can get complex fast, so it’s important to work with an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer if you’re facing Hobbs Act charges.

Attacking the Government’s Legal Theory

Another broad defense strategy is attacking the legal theory behind the Hobbs Act charges altogether. Here are some of the main arguments:

The Hobbs Act is Unconstitutionally Vague

There have been challenges arguing the text of the Hobbs Act is so vague that it violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in United States v. Culbert. But defense lawyers are still making vagueness challenges about how the law is applied, especially around the interstate commerce element.

The Hobbs Act Violates States’ Rights

The Hobbs Act has also been attacked for violating the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The argument is that prosecuting local robbery or extortion infringes on states’ rights to police street crime. However, most courts have found the Hobbs Act a valid exercise of Congress’s authority over interstate commerce.

The Hobbs Act Violates the Nondelegation Doctrine

This argument claims Congress went too far by delegating power to federal prosecutors to determine what local crimes have sufficient interstate commerce effects. Some experts think a nondelegation challenge could potentially succeed. But so far, courts have rejected this argument.

Fighting the Charges at Trial

If you can’t get the charges dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction or as unconstitutional, your case may end up going to trial. Here are some of the main strategies criminal defense lawyers use in Hobbs Act trials:

Challenge the Prosecution’s Evidence

To get a conviction, the prosecution has to prove every element of a Hobbs Act violation beyond a reasonable doubt. This gives the defense opportunities to poke holes in the government’s evidence. For instance, you may argue:

• The alleged extortion was just a hard-nosed business deal, not criminal activity.
• There is no evidence of actual or threatened force, fear, or violence.
• The effect on interstate commerce is minor or speculative, not proven.

Vigorously contesting the prosecution’s evidence and burden of proof is key to defending Hobbs Act charges at trial.

Raise Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative defenses also give the defense a chance to avoid conviction. Some potential defenses to explore are:

• Entrapment – You were induced by law enforcement to commit a crime you otherwise wouldn’t have.
• Duress – You were forced to act under threat of serious bodily harm.
• Necessity – Your illegal conduct was necessary to avoid greater harm.

The evidence has to strongly support these defenses. But they provide one more avenue to fight the charges.

Negotiate a Plea Deal

If the evidence is stacked against you, your lawyer may advise negotiating a plea bargain instead of risking trial. Typical deals in Hobbs Act cases involve:

• Pleading guilty to lesser charges.
• Agreeing to cooperate against other defendants.
• Accepting a sentencing recommendation from the prosecutor.

Plea deals don’t mean avoiding consequences altogether. But they can potentially get charges reduced and sentences decreased. An experienced federal criminal defense lawyer can advise if a plea bargain makes sense in your particular Hobbs Act case.

Consult a Lawyer About Your Best Defenses

I know I covered a lot of ground here! The main takeaway is that viable defenses DO exist when facing Hobbs Act charges. The key is exploring every option with an aggressive and knowledgeable federal criminal defense attorney. Don’t go it alone against the full force of the federal government. The stakes are too high. Consult an attorney right away for trusted advice and counsel specific to the details of your case.

References

United States v. Zeigler
United States v. Perrotta
United States v. Culbert