Hobbs Act Extortion Prosecutions
๐น Legal Definition of Hobbs Act Extortion:
Under the Hobbs Act, "extortion" is defined 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."
There are two main types:
Extortion by Force, Violence, or Fear โ Typically used in mob or gang contexts.
Extortion under Color of Official Right โ Often used in public corruption cases, involving officials who exploit their position.
โ Key Elements of Hobbs Act Extortion:
Obtaining of Property โ The defendant must receive or attempt to receive something of value.
With Consent โ The victim must "consent," though that consent is often coerced or pressured.
Induced Wrongfully โ Must be through force, fear, or misuse of public authority.
Affecting Interstate Commerce โ Even a minimal impact is enough to trigger federal jurisdiction.
๐ Detailed Case Law Analysis: Hobbs Act Extortion
1. Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992)
Issue: What constitutes "extortion under color of official right"?
Facts: A county commissioner accepted money from an undercover FBI agent in exchange for political favors (zoning changes). The commissioner claimed he did not solicit the payment.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that a public official commits extortion under color of official right when he accepts a bribe, even if he did not explicitly solicit it.
Importance:
This case merged extortion and bribery under federal law, at least for public officials.
No explicit demand for payment is necessary โ mere acceptance is sufficient.
This made it easier to prosecute corrupt officials under the Hobbs Act.
2. United States v. Green, 350 U.S. 415 (1956)
Issue: Can labor union leaders be prosecuted under the Hobbs Act?
Facts: A union official demanded money from a company in exchange for labor peace โ essentially threatening strikes if not paid.
Holding: The Court held that threats of economic harm (like strikes) can constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act if they are wrongfully used to obtain personal gain.
Importance:
Labor-related extortion can fall under the Hobbs Act if the union official acts for personal gain, not for legitimate union purposes.
This drew a line between legitimate collective bargaining and private profiteering using union power.
3. United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973)
Issue: Are violent acts by labor unions during legitimate labor disputes prosecutable under the Hobbs Act?
Facts: Union members engaged in violence (e.g., sabotage) during a lawful strike to pressure an employer to agree to collective bargaining demands.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that such acts did not constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act, because the union was seeking legitimate labor objectives.
Importance:
Protected legitimate union activity from Hobbs Act prosecution, even if it involved violence.
In contrast with Green, where the union official acted for private benefit.
Clarified the "wrongfulness" element of extortion.
4. United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1982)
Issue: Can a political party leader with no official public title be prosecuted for extortion under color of official right?
Facts: Margiotta, a Republican Party leader in Nassau County, used his influence over public appointments to steer contracts in exchange for kickbacks, though he held no public office.
Holding: The court upheld his conviction, finding that de facto power and control over public officials can satisfy the "official right" requirement.
Importance:
Broadened the scope of who can be prosecuted under Hobbs Act.
You donโt have to be a public official by title โ if you wield official power, you may be liable.
Showed the law's utility in prosecuting political machines and shadow power structures.
5. United States v. Copeland, 143 F.3d 1439 (11th Cir. 1998)
Issue: Can fear of economic loss be a basis for Hobbs Act extortion?
Facts: A city councilman threatened to delay or deny permits to a business unless he received payment. The business paid out of fear of economic harm.
Holding: The court found this was extortion under color of official right and by wrongful use of fear of economic loss.
Importance:
Reinforced that economic threats (not just physical ones) satisfy the "fear" element.
Public officials can be liable under both prongs: fear and official right.
Useful in prosecuting permitting and regulatory corruption.
6. McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016)
Note: While not a Hobbs Act case per se, it significantly impacted public corruption prosecutions, including those under the Hobbs Act.
Facts: Governor McDonnell accepted lavish gifts in exchange for arranging meetings for a businessman. He argued that this did not qualify as an "official act."
Holding: The Supreme Court narrowly defined "official act," requiring a formal exercise of governmental power, not merely setting up meetings or calling officials.
Importance:
Raised the bar for what qualifies as โofficial actsโ in corruption cases.
Though McDonnell was prosecuted under a different statute (honest services fraud), this ruling affected Hobbs Act cases involving public officials.
Prosecutors must now show more direct use of government power, not just informal influence.
โ๏ธ Key Takeaways:
| Legal Concept | Key Cases | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Public Official Extortion | Evans, Copeland | Acceptance of money in return for official acts is extortion. |
| Union/Private Actor Extortion | Green, Enmons | If acting for personal gain: extortion (Green); if for union goals: not extortion (Enmons). |
| Non-Official Power Brokers | Margiotta | Influence over officials can satisfy "color of official right." |
| Economic Threats | Copeland, Green | Threatening economic harm qualifies as extortion by fear. |
| Narrow Definition of Official Acts | McDonnell | Limits what counts as corruption under color of official right. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments