Hobbs Act Extortion Requires Transferable Property:
Sekhar v. United States

Introduction

The Supreme Court case Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States addresses the scope of the Hobbs Act in defining extortion. The petitioner, Giridhar C. Sekhar, a managing partner of FA Technology Ventures, was convicted under the Hobbs Act for attempting to extort a recommendation from the general counsel of the State Comptroller’s office. The key issue revolves around whether an internal recommendation by a government official constitutes "property" under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), thereby qualifying the act as extortion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia, reversed the Second Circuit's affirmation of Sekhar’s conviction. The Court held that attempting to compel a recommendation does not amount to "the obtaining of property" as defined by the Hobbs Act. The judgment emphasized that extortion under the Hobbs Act requires both the deprivation and acquisition of transferable property, which an internal recommendation lacks.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several precedents to elucidate the definition of "extortion" under the Hobbs Act:

• NEDER v. UNITED STATES (1999): Affirmed that Congress seeks to incorporate the common-law meanings of terms unless explicitly stated otherwise.
• MORISSETTE v. UNITED STATES (1952): Emphasized that congressional intent is to adopt established legal meanings of terms.
• SCHEIDLER v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC. (2003): Clarified that the Hobbs Act requires the actual acquisition of property, not mere deprivation or coercion.
• CLEVELAND v. UNITED STATES (2000): Held that certain governmental licenses do not constitute "property" under federal statutes like the mail fraud law.
• Historical Cases: Referenced older cases like People v. Whaley (1827) and Queen v. Woodward (1707) to demonstrate the traditional focus on tangible property in extortion definitions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on the traditional and statutory definitions of "extortion." Extortion, as per the Hobbs Act, involves the obtaining of property from another, induced by wrongful use of threats. Crucially, the property in question must be transferable. An internal recommendation by a government official does not meet this criterion because it cannot be acquired, transferred, or possessed in the traditional sense of property rights. The Court distinguished between extortion and coercion, noting that while reprisals to force someone to act can be coercion, they do not necessarily amount to extortion unless they involve obtaining transferable property.

Furthermore, the Court examined the legislative history of the Hobbs Act, noting that Congress deliberately did not include coercion provisions, focusing instead on the acquisition of property. This legislative intent reinforces the necessity for the "property" in question to be something tangible or transferable.

Additionally, the Court critiqued the Government’s attempt to characterize the recommendation as property, arguing that such a characterization would blur the line between extortion and coercion, undermining established legal distinctions.

Impact

This judgment significantly narrows the scope of the Hobbs Act by clarifying that not all attempts to compel action through threats constitute extortion. Specifically, it sets a precedent that for an act to be deemed extortion under the Hobbs Act, the target of the extortion must be something that can be obtained and owned, thereby excluding mere coercion to take or refrain from taking actions. This ruling will impact future cases by providing clearer boundaries for prosecuting extortion under federal law, emphasizing the necessity of transferable property in such charges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Definition of Extortion under the Hobbs Act

The Hobbs 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." This means that to qualify as extortion, there must be an attempt to acquire something of value that can be transferred from one party to another through coercion or threats.

Distinction Between Extortion and Coercion

Extortion involves obtaining tangible or transferable property through threats or coercion, while coercion alone refers to forcing someone to act or refrain from acting without necessarily obtaining anything transferable. The Court in this case emphasized that coercion does not meet the Hobbs Act's requirements for extortion unless it results in acquiring property that can be owned or transferred.

Transferable Property

Transferable property refers to something that can be legally transferred from one person to another, such as money, goods, or other items of clear value. In the context of the Hobbs Act, for an act to constitute extortion, the property being sought must be capable of being owned and transferred, not merely an internal recommendation or non-transferable right.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States clarifies that extortion under the Hobbs Act requires the attempt to obtain transferable property. An internal recommendation by a government official does not qualify as property because it cannot be owned or transferred. This ruling maintains the essential distinction between extortion and coercion, ensuring that only attempts to acquire something of tangible value through threats are punishable under the Hobbs Act. This judgment provides a critical boundary for future extortion cases, emphasizing the necessity of property transfer in defining extortion.