Supreme Court Affirms Expansive Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Taylor
On June 20, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Taylor v. United States, a case that was argued last February. The defendant, David Taylor, was convicted of violating the Hobbs Act for taking part in two home invasion robberies near Roanoke, Virginia with members of a gang known as the "Southwest Goonz." The gang routinely targeted the homes of known drug dealers, hoping to find large quantities of cash and/or drugs along with victims who might be unlikely to report the crime.
In the crimes for which Taylor was convicted the robbers actually obtained only $40 in cash, some jewelry, and a couple of cell phones. Taylor also sought to introduce evidence that even if the intended victims were drug dealers, they only sold locally-grown marijuana within the state of Virginia. He argued that the small-time and relatively unsuccessful robberies of purely local drug dealers did not have an effect on interstate commerce sufficient to support federal criminal jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.
In a 7-1 holding, the Court rejected Taylor's argument. The Hobbs Act requires that a robbery have an effect on interstate commerce or other commerce over which Congress has jurisdiction. Because Congress has substantial authority over the nationwide market in controlled substances, the Court said, any robbery of a drug dealer will affect commerce over which Congress has jurisdiction. And because the Hobbs Act applies to attempted robberies, this will be true even if, as in Taylor's case, the defendant did not actually obtain any drugs.
In other words, if the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was attempting to rob a drug dealer, that will satisfy the federal jurisdictional requirements of the Hobbs Act whether or not that robbery was successful. The government does not need to prove that the drug dealer victim actually sold drugs across state lines or any other actual effect on interstate commerce.
The holding in Taylor is relatively narrow because it is limited to cases involving robberies of those engaged in the commerce of illegal drugs. If a defendant robbed someone who, for example, grew tomatoes in his back yard and sold them only at local markets, the outcome could be different and a more substantial effect on interstate commerce might be required. But Congress has such expansive federal jurisdiction over the market in controlled substances that any attempt to affect that market through robbery will subject a defendant to federal jurisdiction.
In short, the Hobbs Act now serves as a catch-all federal robbery statute that applies to any attempt to rob a drug dealer, no matter how local, trivial, or unsuccessful. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that a more substantial showing of an effect on interstate commerce should be required before such a small-scale, local robbery can be prosecuted in federal court.
For a more detailed analysis of the facts and arguments in Taylor, see this post that I wrote about the case back when it was argued.
Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list and receive e-mail notifications of future posts.