Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951)
Citation
18 U.S.C. § 1951 — Anti-Racketeering Act of 1946. Prohibits robbery or extortion that in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects interstate or foreign commerce.
Statutory Text (Key Definitions)
- Extortion: “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.”
- Robbery: the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another against their will by means of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury.
Jurisdictional Element
The act must “in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce.” Courts construe this broadly; a de minimis effect on interstate commerce is sufficient. Even a potential or theoretical effect can suffice.
- United States v. Stirone: the interstate commerce nexus must be charged and proven, but it need not be the primary purpose of the conduct.
Two Theories of Extortion
1. Fear/Coercion Extortion
Obtaining property through wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or economic fear. The means must be wrongful; a legitimate threat (e.g., truthful threat to report a crime) may not qualify depending on circuit.
2. Color of Official Right Extortion
A public official obtains property to which they are not entitled in exchange for the exercise of official power.
- Evans v. United States (1992): a public official’s passive acceptance of a benefit can constitute extortion under color of official right; the government need not prove the official made an explicit demand. The official need only accept a payment knowing it is given in exchange for official action.
- McCormick v. United States (1991): campaign contributions are treated differently — an explicit quid pro quo is required (an explicit promise or undertaking to perform or not perform an official act in exchange for the contribution). The Evans passive-acceptance standard does not apply to contributions.
Quid Pro Quo Requirement
There must be an explicit or implicit agreement to exchange an official act for payment.
- McCormick — explicit quid pro quo required for campaign contributions.
- Evans — less demanding standard for non-contribution payments; passive receipt can suffice.
”Official Act” Under McDonnell
McDonnell v. United States (2016) limited the meaning of “official act” for both Hobbs Act extortion and 18 U.S.C. § 201 bribery:
- An “official act” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on a question or matter pending or to be brought before the official.
- Merely setting up meetings, calling officials, or facilitating access — without more — does not constitute an official act.
- This narrowing significantly constrains public corruption prosecutions.
Robbery
Hobbs Act robbery requires:
- Unlawful taking of property
- From the person or presence of another
- Against their will
- By means of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury
- Affecting interstate commerce
Penalties
Up to 20 years imprisonment per count.
Key Cases
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| Evans v. United States (1992) | Passive acceptance by official satisfies color of official right extortion |
| McCormick v. United States (1991) | Campaign contributions require explicit quid pro quo |
| McDonnell v. United States (2016) | “Official act” narrowed to formal governmental action; mere access/influence insufficient |
| United States v. Stirone | Commerce element must be charged and proven; broadly construed |