Criminal Defense Lawyers

Hobbs Act Violations and Interstate Commerce: Meeting the Jurisdictional Hook

Hobbs Act Violations and Interstate Commerce: Meeting the Jurisdictional Hook

The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is a federal statute that prohibits robbery or extortion affecting interstate commerce. For a defendant to be convicted under the Hobbs Act, the government must prove two essential elements: (1) the defendant induced someone to part with property; (2) through the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear; (3) in such a way as to affect interstate commerce. That last element—the interstate commerce nexus—is key, as it establishes federal jurisdiction over the crime. But what exactly constitutes an effect on interstate commerce sufficient to invoke Hobbs Act jurisdiction? Let’s break it down.

Interstate Commerce Defined

First, it’s important to understand what “interstate commerce” means. The Supreme Court has defined it broadly as trade, commerce, transportation, or communication between any part of a state and any part of another state. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). This includes the movement of money, goods, services, and people across state lines. It also includes activities that are connected to or substantially affect interstate commerce, even if they occur solely within one state.

Meeting the Interstate Commerce Nexus

There are a few main ways the government can establish the required link to interstate commerce in a Hobbs Act case:

• The robbery or extortion itself directly impacts interstate commerce. For example, the defendant robs a business that engages in interstate commerce, like a national retailer or restaurant chain.
• The robbery or extortion depletes the assets of a business engaged in interstate commerce. So even if a local mom-and-pop shop was targeted, if the theft or extortion depletes the business’s assets available for purchasing goods that move in interstate commerce, that can establish the nexus.
• The property obtained through the robbery or extortion came from outside the state or was destined for interstate transit. If the property was moving interstate as part of its ordinary course of business, that establishes the nexus.
• The defendant’s acts had a “realistic probability” of impacting interstate commerce in some way. The impact does not actually have to take place if the government can show there was a realistic chance of such an impact.

The government does not have to show that the effect on interstate commerce was certain or even substantial. Only a minimal potential impact is required. For instance, in United States v. Lynch, the Fourth Circuit held that the robbery of $50 from a store clerk was sufficient, because the store sold goods manufactured out of state. The $50, although a small sum, would have been used to purchase additional goods for the store moving in interstate commerce. 282 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2002).

De Minimis Impact

As the Lynch case shows, the required effect on interstate commerce does not need to be large. Even a very minor or subtle effect is enough to satisfy the Hobbs Act’s jurisdictional element, as long as the effect is not purely speculative. This “de minimis impact” standard comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Perez, 379 U.S. 89 (1964). There, the Court upheld a loan shark’s conviction under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, finding that extortionate credit transactions (even purely intrastate ones) could negatively impact interstate commerce when considered in the aggregate.

Following Perez, courts have repeatedly held that a de minimis effect on interstate commerce is sufficient for Hobbs Act jurisdiction. For example, in United States v. Silverio, the defendant was convicted for robbing a local marijuana dealer of $200 worth of pot. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding a de minimis effect on interstate commerce because the stolen marijuana originated from out-of-state. 414 F.3d 456 (3d Cir. 2005).

Robberies of Individual Victims

Can the robbery or extortion of an individual person (rather than a business) satisfy the Hobbs Act’s interstate nexus? The circuits are split on this issue. The Second, Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits have all held that the robbery of an individual can meet the interstate commerce element if the property taken has moved in interstate commerce. For example, robbing someone of their out-of-state car, debit card, or cell phone.

But the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have disagreed, holding that the robbery or extortion of an individual does not affect interstate commerce unless the crime depletes the assets of a business engaged in interstate commerce. For instance, if the individual victim is an employee of a national company, and the theft prevents them from purchasing goods for their employer that move interstate. Otherwise, robbing an individual of their personal property is too attenuated an effect on interstate commerce.

The circuit split means this issue remains unsettled. The Supreme Court has yet to take up a Hobbs Act case involving the robbery of an individual. So defendants should carefully research controlling case law in their jurisdiction. Where the law is unclear, there may be room to argue against Hobbs Act jurisdiction.

Evidentiary Considerations

To establish the interstate nexus at trial, the government often introduces evidence showing:

• The business targeted engaged in interstate commerce
• The goods obtained came from out-of-state
• The defendant’s acts depleted assets used for interstate purchases
• The acts affected out-of-state business operations

Defense counsel can rebut this evidence by showing:

• The business did not actually engage in interstate commerce
• The goods came purely from in-state
• The impact on interstate purchases or operations was merely speculative

Pinning down the prosecution on the evidentiary details is key. The burden is on the government to prove the interstate nexus beyond a reasonable doubt.

Practical Implications

The Hobbs Act’s broad jurisdictional hook makes it a potent prosecutorial tool. Virtually any robbery or extortion can be charged federally under the Act if there is some tangential effect on interstate commerce. This allows federal prosecutors to pursue cases that would otherwise be handled locally. It also means severe mandatory minimum sentences under federal law.

However, the breadth of the interstate commerce element provides opportunities to challenge jurisdiction. The evidentiary record may reveal a lack of any concrete impact on interstate commerce. And in circuits that limit Hobbs Act charges for individual robberies, defendants have room to argue against federal prosecution. While the de minimis standard sets a low bar, it is still incumbent on the government to prove that jurisdictional hook. Defense counsel should therefore scrutinize the interstate nexus closely.

The Bottom Line

The Hobbs Act’s requirement that a robbery or extortion affect interstate commerce is extremely broad. The government need only show a minimal potential impact on interstate business and transactions. But it remains a required element that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants should closely analyze the evidentiary basis for asserting federal Hobbs Act jurisdiction, and challenge that jurisdiction when the interstate nexus is doubtful or speculative.

I hope this overview of Hobbs Act jurisdiction was helpful! Let me know if you have any other questions.

References

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).
United States v. Perez, 379 U.S. 89 (1964).
United States v. Lynch, 282 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Silverio, 414 F.3d 456 (3d Cir. 2005).