18 U.S.C. § 1951

Interference with commerce by threats or violence

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.(b) As used in this section—(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.(2) The term “extortion” means 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.(3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101–115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title 45.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 793; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 420a–420e–1 (June 18, 1934, ch. 569, §§ 1–6, 48 Stat. 979, 980; July 3, 1946, ch. 537, 60 Stat. 420).

Section consolidates sections 420a to 420e–1 of Title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology and arrangement necessary to effect consolidation.

Provisions designating offense as felony were omitted as unnecessary in view of definitive section 1 of this title. (See reviser’s note under section 550 of this title.)

Subsection (c) of the revised section is derived from title II of the 1946 amendment. It substitutes references to specific sections of the United States Code, 1940 ed., in place of references to numerous acts of Congress, in conformity to the style of the revision bill. Subsection (c) as rephrased will preclude any construction of implied repeal of the specified acts of Congress codified in the sections enumerated.

The words “attempts or conspires so to do” were substituted for sections 3 and 4 of the 1946 act, omitting as unnecessary the words “participates in an attempt” and the words “or acts in concert with another or with others”, in view of section 2 of this title which makes any person who participates in an unlawful enterprise or aids or assists the principal offender, or does anything towards the accomplishment of the crime, a principal himself.

Words “shall, upon conviction thereof,” were omitted as surplusage, since punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is secured.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Sections 101–115 of Title 29, referred to in subsec. (c), is a reference to act Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70, popularly known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 101 of Title 29, Labor, and Tables.

Section 11 of that act, formerly classified to section 111 of Title 29, was repealed and reenacted as section 3692 of this title by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948.

Section 12 of that act, formerly classified to section 112 of Title 29, was repealed by act June 25, 1948, and is covered by rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, set out in Appendix to this title.

Section 164 of Title 45, included within the reference in subsec. (c) to sections 151–188 of Title 45, was repealed by act Oct. 10, 1940, ch. 851, § 4, 54 Stat. 1111.

Section 186 of Title 45, included within the reference in subsec. (c) to sections 151–188 of Title 45, was omitted from the Code.

Amendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

This section is popularly known as the “Hobbs Act”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6,731 cases (1,492 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: United States v. Needham

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Needham (2010) ca2 · cites it 34× “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 , 1952. They challenge their convictions based on an instruction that foreclosed the jury's consideration of an essential jurisdictional element of Hobbs Act robbery: whether the robberies, which targeted the proceeds of drug trafficking, affected…”

United States v. Monico Dominguez (2020) ca9 · cites it 15× “§ 1957 ); and affirmed the remainder of the judgment, which included convictions of Hobbs Act robbery ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 (a) and 2), attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery ( 18 U.”

United States v. Anthony Robinson (2016) ca3 · cites it 16× “§ 924 (c), of brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence and two counts, under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a), of Hobbs Act robbery.”

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (2003) scotus · cites it 14× “First, whether petitioners committed extortion within the meaning of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 . Second, whether respondents, as private litigants, may obtain injunctive relief in a civil action pursuant to 18 U.”

United States v. Joseph Simms (2019) ca4 · cites it 9× “After his arrest and indictment, Simms pleaded guilty to Count I, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , and Count II, brandishing a 3 firearm during and in relation to a “crime of violence” — that is, the Hobbs Act conspiracy in Count I — in…”

Ocasio v. United States (2016) scotus · cites it 9× “Petitioner was charged with obtaining money from the shopowners under color of official right, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. §1951 , and of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Booker (2004) scotus · cites it 4× “extortion," 18 U. S. C. § 1951 (a), or, say, using the mail "for the purpose of executing" a "scheme or artifice to defraud," § 1341 (2000 ed.”

United States v. Burhoe (2017) ca1 · cites it 7× “18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a). This same 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.”

Evans v. United States (1992) scotus · cites it 14× “951 (1991), to resolve a conflict in the Circuits over the question whether an affirmative act of inducement by a public official, such as a demand, is an element of the offense of extortion "under color of official right" prohibited by the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951 . We…”

Taylor v. United States (2016) scotus · cites it 9× “…it a crime for a person to affect commerce, or to attempt to do so, by robbery. 18 U. S. C. §1951 (a). The Act defines “commerce” broadly as inter- state commerce “and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” §1951(b)(3). This case requires us to…”

United States v. Ronald Repak (2017) ca3 · cites it 10× “0" encoding="utf-8"?> *237 OPINION SMITH, Chief Judge Ronald Repak was convicted of two counts of Hobbs Act extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , and two counts of federal program bribery, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Tuan Luong (2020) ca9 · cites it 10× “§ 922 (g)(1)), but did not reach a unanimous verdict on a Hobbs Act robbery count ( 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a)) and a dependent count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence ( 18 U.”

Show all 6,731 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) — 29 cases

United States v. Monsalvatge (2017) ca2

United States v. Clarence Buck (2017) ca5

United States v. Demetrius Renaldo Bowers (2016) ca11

United States v. Budd (2007) ca6

Augustus John Camelio v. American Federation, Etc. (1998) ca1

— 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)(2) — 1 case

HOLLAND v. ROBERTS (2024) oklacivapp

— 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) — 1 case

United States v. Capati (1997) casd

— 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) — 4 cases

United States v. Quashie (2016) nyed

United States v. McDaniels (2015) vaed

United States v. Kerby Aurelhomme (2015) ca11

Thomas v. United States (2021) nysd

— 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) — 7 cases

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (2003) scotus “First, whether petitioners committed extortion within the meaning of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 . Second, whether respondents, as private litigants, may obtain injunctive relief in a civil action pursuant to 18 U.”

United States v. Larry Inman (2022) ca6

Rendelman v. State (2007) mdctspecapp

United States v. Williams (1980) ca5

United States v. Kott (2007) akd

— 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3) — 2 cases

United States v. Garcia-Ortiz (2008) ca1

Rushing Jr. v. Sproul (2021) ilsd

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.