Hook, Line, and Stinker: How the Jurisdictional 'Hook' for Hobbs is Unconstitutionally Broad, Leads to Overcriminalization, and Absurd Results

• Author: Kameron C. Dodge
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2020; B.S., Northwestern University, 2013
• Pages: 2299-2328

2299

Hook, Line, and Stinker: How the

Jurisdictional “Hook” for Hobbs is

Unconstitutionally Broad, Leads

to Overcriminalization, and

Absurd Results

Kameron C. Dodge*

ABSTRACT: The Hobbs Act, passed by Congress in 1946, makes it a federal

crime to obstruct, delay, or affect commerce through robbery or extortion.

“Commerce” is the federal jurisdictional hook that elevates robbery to a federal

crime. The commerce hook grants jurisdiction for all robberies that Congress’s

Commerce Clause power reaches. This Note argues that federal Hobbs Act

robbery prosecutions for individual, localized robbery eviscerates meaningful

dual federalism distinctions and has led to confusion among lower courts and

patchwork definitions for what it means to “affect commerce” for these cases.

This Note proposes three solutions—at least one for each coordinate branch of

government—to solve the problem. For the judicial branch, the Supreme Court

should declare the Hobbs Act unconstitutional because it grants Congress a

police power to reach purely local robbery that should be left to state prosecution

and that “commerce” should be interpreted consistently with its meaning at

the time of the Hobbs Act’s passage. For the legislative branch, Congress

should amend the Hobbs Act to only allow federal prosecution of robberies that

“substantially and directly” affect commerce. The Note concludes that the

judicial and legislative solutions for Hobbs are unlikely, so pragmatically, the

executive branch should adopt prospective enforcement policies that make

clear Hobbs charges should not be brought for de minimis, localized robbery.

Each of these solutions would aid in restoring the appropriate balance between

federal and state criminal robbery law thus, keeping federal resources trained

on the most pressing national concerns.

*

J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2020; B.S., Northwestern

University, 2013. My thanks to Professors Cristina Tilley, Todd Pettys and Mihailis Diamantis for

their helpful comments and advice as well as the Iowa Law Review editorial board for their w ork

on this Note. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to my parents, Mark and Pam; without their

support and encouragement none of my dreams would be possible.

2300 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105:2299

I.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2300

II. A REVIEW OF HOBBS ................................................................... 2301

A.HOBBS ACT HISTORY ............................................................ 2302

B.SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER ............................ 2304

C.SUPREME COURT’S INTERPRETATION OF “COMMERCE”

FROM HOBBS ACT ................................................................. 2307

III. IRREGULARITIES AND MISAPPLICATIONS ..................................... 2310

A.CONFLICTING CIRCUIT INTERPRETATIONS FOR “AFFECT

COMMERCE” ......................................................................... 2311

1.Second Circuit ............................................................. 2311

2.Fifth Circuit ................................................................. 2313

3.Ninth Circuit ............................................................... 2314

4.Eighth Circuit .............................................................. 2315

5.Eleventh Circuit........................................................... 2318

B.CIRCUIT CONFLICT ON SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR FACTS ........... 2319

1.ATM Robbery is Insufficient to Establish Hobbs

Jurisdiction: United States v. Burton ............................. 2319

2.ATM Robbery is Sufficient to Establish Hobbs

Jurisdiction: United States v. Rose ................................. 2320

C.OVER-FEDERALIZATION OF CRIME UNDER HOBBS .................... 2322

IV.THE SEARCH FOR A LIMITING PRINCIPLE .................................... 2323

A.JUDICIAL BRANCH: PREVENTING HOBBS’S APPLICABILITY

TO INDIVIDUALIZED, LOCAL ROBBERY .................................... 2324

B.LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: MODIFYING HOBBS’S STATUTORY

TEXT .................................................................................... 2326

C.EXECUTIVE BRANCH: PROHIBIT HOBBS CHARGES FOR

INDIVIDUAL, LOCALIZED ROBBERY ......................................... 2327

V.CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 2328

I. INTRODUCTION

The Hobbs Act (“Hobbs”) was passed in 1946 as an amendment to the

Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934.1 Hobbs was important to the successful

prosecution of mostly intrastate disruptions to transporting goods in

interstate commerce.2 Traditionally, the criminalization and prosecution of

1. 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012).

2. Prosecution Under the Hobbs Act and the Expansion of Federal Criminal Jurisdiction, 66 J. CRIM.

L. & CRIMINOLOGY 306, 310 (1975) [hereinafter Prosecution Under Hobbs].