U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES

In its 2015-2016 term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a number of cases involving federal criminal statutes.  Some of these decisions are complex and only three that are relatively easy to understand are included.  These summaries are from the ACLU with material in [ ] added by blogger.  See also the Caetano case directly below.

 In Ocasio v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1423 (May 2, 2016)(5-3), the Court upheld a police officer’s conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, ruling that it was unnecessary to show that every member of the conspiracy was capable of satisfying every element of the underlying crime. [This is also the law of conspiracy in most, if not all states and, although there are some prior cases which affirm this requirement, they are probably not still valid]

 

In Taylor v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2074 (June 20, 2016)(7-1), the Court ruled that the provisions of the Hobbs Act, which make it a federal crime to engage in a robbery (or attempt a robbery) that affects interstate commerce allow federal prosecution for the robbery (or attempted robbery) of a drug dealer. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito relied on the Court’s earlier holding in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), that the federal government may prohibit even intrastate activities involving marijuana because of their impact on the national market. By the same reasoning, he concluded, someone who “target[s] a drug dealer” for robbery “necessarily affects or attempts to affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” Id. at ____.

[The Court said Congress had power to validly pass this statute under its constitutional power to regulated interstate commerce]

In Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272 (June 26, 2016)(6-2), the Court held that a federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence involving the use of force from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), applies to those convictions based on the reckless use of force as well as the intentional use of force. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion. [The Court interpreted the statute to include misdemeanor convictions that involved reckless uses of force, not just intentional uses of force]

 

If you would like the see the opinions in this case, go to the post below and use the link to the opinion in that post at the Supreme Court website (supremecourt.gov).  Then search for the case by the case name/title or the citation (e.g. 136 S.Ct. 2200)