Blog
The Hobbs Act: An Overused Tool for Federal Prosecutors?
The Hobbs Act: An Overused Tool for Federal Prosecutors?
The Hobbs Act, enacted in 1946, was originally intended to combat racketeering by labor unions. But in recent years, federal prosecutors have used the act as a tool to target public corruption, terrorism, cybercrimes, and even unpopular political causes. Some legal experts argue that prosecutors are overusing the Hobbs Act by stretching the law beyond its original purpose.
What is the Hobbs Act?
The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, makes it a federal crime to obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce through robbery or extortion. The act defines extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”
To violate the Hobbs Act, the extortion or robbery must have at least a “de minimis” effect on interstate commerce. This is a very low threshold, meaning the impact on interstate commerce can be minor. For example, if a business buys supplies from another state, that is enough to satisfy the interstate commerce requirement.
Original Intent of the Hobbs Act
When it was enacted in 1946, the Hobbs Act was intended to combat racketeering by labor unions. Specifically, it targeted groups that used violence or threats to extort wages from employers. There was concern that labor racketeering could impact interstate shipments and commerce.
The language of the act is very broad, leading to debate about how extensively it should be applied. But initially, it was viewed primarily as a tool to fight organized crime infiltrating labor unions.
Expansion to Public Corruption
In the 1970s, federal prosecutors began using the Hobbs Act to target public corruption by elected officials. The theory was that a public official who demands bribes is “extorting” money under color of official right. This expansive interpretation was upheld in court decisions.
By the 1990s, Hobbs Act extortion charges had become a go-to method for federal prosecutors to combat bribery and kickbacks involving public officials. The act gave the federal government broad jurisdiction over public corruption cases that could affect interstate commerce.
Broadening Scope to Other Crimes
Federal prosecutors have continued to push the boundaries of the Hobbs Act further. In recent decades, they’ve used it to prosecute crimes such as:
- Terrorism – Claiming terrorist acts extort the U.S. government to change policies
- Cybercrimes – Arguing hacking extorts businesses to improve security
- Robberies of drug dealers – Contending dealing drugs involves interstate commerce
- Civil rights protests – Alleging use of force extorts policy changes
Courts have largely allowed these expanded applications, citing the low bar of affecting interstate commerce. As a result, the Hobbs Act has become a far-reaching tool for federal prosecutors.
Criticism of Overuse
Some legal experts argue that federal prosecutors are abusing the Hobbs Act by applying it to crimes and contexts beyond its original scope. As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote, “the Hobbs Act is repeatedly used to federalize street crimes and other offenses without showing a tangible impact on interstate commerce.”
This overuse has three main implications, according to critics:
- It undermines federalism by encroaching into matters traditionally left to states
- It gives too much power to federal prosecutors compared to state prosecutors
- It threatens civil liberties by criminalizing unpopular political causes
For example, some civil rights groups objected when federal prosecutors charged protesters with Hobbs Act extortion for participating in rallies against police brutality. They argued this wrongly framed activism as extortion.
Possible Defenses Against Hobbs Act Charges
For defendants facing Hobbs Act charges, there are some possible defenses to consider:
- No “obtaining” of property – The Hobbs Act requires obtaining property from another. If the defendant did not actually obtain or attempt to obtain property, that may defeat the charge.
- No effect on interstate commerce – The defense could argue the alleged extortion did not satisfy the requirement of affecting interstate commerce.
- Duress – If the defendant acted under threat of harm, duress may excuse otherwise illegal actions.
- Entrapment – If the scheme was proposed or encouraged by government agents, entrapment could apply.
However, courts have generally construed the Hobbs Act requirements very broadly, making them difficult defenses to prevail on. But skilled criminal defense lawyers can still try to argue the prosecution is overreaching.
What’s Next for the Hobbs Act?
The Hobbs Act gives federal prosecutors tremendous leverage. It allows them to pursue public corruption, terrorism, civil rights cases, and more under the banner of extortion. With courts repeatedly upholding expansive interpretations, this trend may continue.
Some lawmakers have proposed amending the Hobbs Act to limit its scope. But so far, those efforts have not gained traction. Absent legislative changes, federal prosecutors seem likely to keep leveraging the flexible Hobbs Act in creative ways.
The broad use of the Hobbs Act will remain controversial. As federal prosecutors push the boundaries of the law, they should also consider principles of judicial restraint. The Hobbs Act may be a useful tool, but it does not make all misconduct a federal case. As critics contend, moderation is needed to prevent overfederalization of crimes traditionally handled by states. With wisdom and discretion, federal prosecutors can avoid abusing the potent Hobbs Act.
References
US Department of Justice, “Hobbs Act—Generally.”
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003).
The New York Times, “Extortion Charges for Protesters Met With Criticism.”