View source for Ocasio v. United States

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Ocasio v. United States
  |ArgueDate=October 6
  |ArgueYear=2015
  |DecideDate=May 2
  |DecideYear=2016
  |FullName=Samuel Ocasio, Petitioner v. United States of America
  |USVol=578
  |USPage=___
  |ParallelCitations=136 S. Ct. 1423; 194 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 520
  |Docket=14–361
  |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-361
  |OpinionAnnouncement=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-361_db8e.pdf
  |Prior=''United States v. Ocasio'', 750 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140429141 399] ([[4th Cir.]] 2014); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1491 (2015).
  |Procedural=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=A defendant may be charged with conspiracy to commit extortion even though the ones being extorted are part of the extortion scheme.
  |Majority=Alito
  |JoinMajority=Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
  |Concurrence=Breyer
  |Dissent=Thomas
  |Dissent2=Sotomayor
  |JoinDissent2=Roberts
  |LawsApplied=[[Hobbs Act]], 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1951.
}}

'''''Ocasio v. United States''''', 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court clarified whether the [[Hobbs Act]]'s definition of [[Conspiracy (criminal)|conspiracy]] to commit [[extortion]] only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy.<ref>{{ussc|name=Ocasio v. United States|volume=578|year=|docket=14-361}}, slip op. at 1, 5, 18 (2016).</ref> The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former [[Baltimore, Maryland]] police officer, was indicted for participating in a [[Kickback (bribery)|kickback scheme]] with an [[automobile repair shop]] where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments.<ref name = Ocasio2>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 2.</ref> Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 3. 11–14.</ref>

Writing for a majority of the Court, [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Justice]] [[Samuel Alito]] held that a conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act can occur when an individual obtains property from another conspirator under the pretense that they have an official right to take that property.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1, 18.</ref> Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he suggested that the Court may need to revisit prior cases that have held that "extortion" is roughly equivalent to "[[bribery]]".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1–2 (Breyer, J., concurring) (noting that he ""join[ed] the majority's opinion in full.").</ref> Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] wrote a [[dissenting opinion]] in which he also argued that the Court should overturn a line of cases that has conflated the definition of extortion with bribery, and he also argued that the majority's opinion was inconsistent with principles of [[Federalism in the United States|federalism]].<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1, 3–6 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] also wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the majority's opinion was inconsistent with the plain language of the Hobbs Act as well as the Court's prior conspiracy law jurisprudence.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1, 11 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).</ref> Although some commentators have stated that the case is consistent with precedent,<ref>See, e.g., Randall Eliason, [http://www.gwlr.org/ocasio-v-united-states-the-contortionist-extortionist/ ''Response, The Contortionist Extortionist: Response to'' United States v. Ocasio], {{smallcaps|Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket}} (May 10, 2016).</ref> at least one commentator has suggested that the case will "raise more questions than answers."<ref name = Little>Rory Little, [http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/opinion-analysis-federal-conspiracy-law-reaches-persons-who-agree-to-obtain-secret-kickbacks-from-a-member-of-the-conspiracy/ ''Opinion analysis: Federal conspiracy law reaches persons who agree to obtain secret kickbacks from a member of the conspiracy''], {{smallcaps|SCOTUSblog}} (May 2, 2016) (internal quotations omitted).</ref>

==Background==
Between 2008 and 2011, at least 60 Baltimore, Maryland police officers engaged in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop.<ref name =Ocasio1to2>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1–2.</ref> When these officers responded to [[Traffic collision|traffic accidents]], they would refer motorists to the repair shop in exchange for payments of $150 to $300 for every referral.<ref name = Ocasio2/> Samuel Ocasio was a former Baltimore police officer who participated in this scheme between 2009 and 2011.<ref name =Ocasio1to2/> He was charged under the Hobbs Act<ref>{{USC|18|1951}}.</ref> for extorting money from the automobile repair shop.<ref name = Ocasio2/> Before his trial began, Ocasio sought a [[Jury instructions|jury instruction]] that would have required the jury to find, as a prerequisite for convicting him for conspiracy to commit extortion, that "the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy was to obtain money or property from some person who was not a member of the conspiracy".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 3 (internal quotations omitted) (noting that Ocasio based his request on the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]]'s ruling in ''United States v. Brock'', 501 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071263501f3d76211241 762] (6th Cir. 2007)).</ref> The [[United States District Court for the District of Maryland]] ultimately refused to provide Ocasio's proposed instruction and Ocasio was found guilty on one count of conspiracy and three counts of extortion.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 4 (noting that "[t]he District Court denied [Ocasio's] motions, concluding that the Fourth Circuit had already rejected ''Brock''{{'s}} holding in ''United States v. Spitler'', 800 F.2d 1267 (4th Cir. 1986)).</ref> On [[appeal]] to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]], Ocasio argued that "his conspiracy conviction was fatally flawed because the conspirators had not agreed to obtain money from a person who was not a member of the conspiracy", but the Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 4 (citing ''United States v. Ocasio'', 750 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140429141 399] (4th Cir. 2014)).</ref> Ocasio appealed again, and on March 2, 2015, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] granted certiorari.<ref>''Ocasio v. United States'', 574 U.S. 1190 (2015) (granting certiorari).</ref>

==Opinion of the Court==
[[File:Samuel Alito official photo.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.0|In his majority opinion, Justice [[Samuel Alito]] (pictured) held that it was sufficient for the government to demonstrate that at least one member of the conspiracy intended to commit extortion.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 10.</ref>]]
Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that to be found guilty of conspiracy, a "defendant must merely reach an agreement with the 'specific intent that the underlying crime ''be committed''' by some member of the conspiracy".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 5 (quoting 2 K. O'Malley, J. Grenig, & W. Lee, {{smallcaps|Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Criminal}} §31:03, p. 225 (6th ed. 2008)) (emphasis in original).</ref> He concluded that it was sufficient for the government to demonstrate that each conspirator "specifically intended that ''some conspirator'' commit each element of the substantive offense".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 10 (emphasis in original).</ref> Additionally, Justice Alito rejected Ocasio's argument that the conspiracy conviction should be reversed because Ocasio and the auto shop were simply exchanging "their own" money; instead, Justice Alito held that the convictions were justified because other Baltimore police officers were involved in the underlying substantive violations.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 11–14.</ref>

Justice Alito also rejected Ocasio's argument that the Court's "interpretation makes the Hobbs Act sweep too broadly, creating a national antibribery law and displacing a carefully crafted network of state and federal statutes".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 14–16.</ref> In ''Evans v. United States'',<ref>''Evans v. United States'', {{ussc|volume=504|page=255|pin=260|year=1992}}.</ref> the Court had explained that an act of extortion under the Hobbs act was the "rough equivalent" of bribery.<ref name = Ocasion14>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 14.</ref> Because Ocasio did not ask the court to overrule ''Evans'' and because the Court had "no occasion to do so" ''[[sua sponte]]'', Justice Alito held that "we have no principled basis for precluding the prosecution of conspiracies to commit" extortion under the Hobbs act.<ref name = Ocasion14/> Justice Alito also rejected the argument that the Court's ruling would "transform every bribe of a public official into a conspiracy to commit extortion" because "[i]n cases where the bribe payor is merely complying with an official demand, the payor lacks the ''[[mens rea]]'' necessary for a conspiracy".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 16.</ref> Consequently, because Ocasio entered into an agreement to extort money "under color of official right", the Court affirmed Ocasio's conviction.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 18.</ref>

===Justice Breyer's concurring opinion===
Although he "join[ed] the majority's opinion in full", Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate concurring opinion to explain that ''Evans v. United States'' "may well have been wrongly decided".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1–2 (Breyer, J., concurring).</ref> Justice Breyer wrote that "[t]he present case underscores some of the problems that ''Evans'' raises", but he ultimately agreed with the majority's conclusion because "we must in this case take Evans as good law".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 2 (Breyer, J., concurring).</ref> However, Justice Breyer argued that "it is an exceptionally difficult question" whether the Hobbs Act's definition of extortion was equivalent to bribery.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1 (Breyer, J., concurring).</ref>

===Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion===
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Ocasio's conviction should be reversed because "an extortionist cannot conspire to commit extortion with the person whom he is extorting".<ref name = Thomas6>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 6 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> He stated that the majority opinion "further exposes the flaw in this Court's understanding of extortion".<ref name = Thomas1>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> Justice Thomas argued that this misunderstanding originated in the Court's prior opinion in ''Evans v. United States'', which, according to Justice Thomas, "wrongly equated extortion with bribery".<ref name = Thomas1/> In ''Evans'', Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that under the Hobbs Act, "the only perpetrator is the public official; the payor is a victim and not a participant".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 3 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citing ''Evans'', 504 U.S. at 283 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> Relying upon this principle, Justice Thomas reiterated that it is not possible for an extortionist and "his payor-victim can be co-conspirators to extortion of the payor".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 3 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> Justice Thomas criticized the majority for taking "another step away from the common-law understanding of extortion that the Hobbs Act adopted", and argued that "[o]nly by blurring the distinction between bribery and extortion could Evans make it seem plausible that an extortionist and a victim can conspire to extort the victim".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 3–4 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref>

Justice Thomas also criticized the majority for expanding federal criminal law in a manner that he argued was inconsistent with the principles of [federalism.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 4–6 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> He characterized the Hobbs Act as an example of the "stunning expansion" into the area of anti-corruption laws, which he argued were "traditionally policed by state and local laws".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 3 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citing ''Evans'', 504 U.S. at 290 (Thomas, J., dissenting)).</ref> Additionally, Justice Thomas stated that the authors of the Hobbs Act did not intend to enable the regulation of state officials by federal prosecutors, and he characterized the expansion of the Hobbs act as an "invasion of state sovereignty".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 4–5 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> He wrote, "as in ''Evans'', the Court reaches its decision with barely a nod to the sovereignty interests that it tramples".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 5 (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> For those reasons, Justice Thomas dissented from the Court's majority opinion.<ref name = Thomas6/>

===Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion===
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she was joined by [[Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court|Chief Justice]] [[John Roberts]].<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).</ref> She criticized the majority's conclusion as "not a natural or logical way to interpret" the Hobbs Act's definition of extortion, which requires property to be extorted "from another".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 1 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) ("If a group of conspirators sets out to extort 'another' person, we ordinarily think that they are proposing to extort money or property from a victim outside their group, not one of themselves.").</ref> Citing [[lexical definition|dictionary definitions]] of the word "another" and the Court's prior conspiracy law jurisprudence, Justice Sotomayor argued that an individual should only be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion when they plan to extort an individual who is not a member of the conspiracy.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 3–6 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting)</ref> Likewise, she also distinguished other cases in which criminal defendants were also the "victim[s] of the crime" in those cases.<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 6–11 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).</ref> Justice Sotomayor ultimately concluded her opinion by stating that the majority reached "an unnatural outcome predicated on an unsupported assumption".<ref>''Ocasio'', slip op. at 11 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).</ref>

==Commentary and analysis==
In his analysis for ''[[The George Washington Law Review]]'', Randall Eliason wrote that the Court's decision "doesn't represent some new watershed in white collar crime or dramatic expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction", but rather, that the Court's ruling was "simply the logical and unfortunate outgrowth of a questionable Supreme Court decision more than three decades old."<ref>Randall Eliason, [http://www.gwlr.org/ocasio-v-united-states-the-contortionist-extortionist/ ''Response, The Contortionist Extortionist: Response to'' United States v. Ocasio], {{smallcaps|Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket}} (May 10, 2016).</ref> Additionally, in his review of the Court's opinion for ''[[SCOTUSblog]]'', Rory Little wrote that the majority's opinion "does not seem wrong as a matter of case-specific practical reality" but that the case may "raise more questions than answers for future federal official right extortion prosecutions."<ref name = Little/> [[Jonathan H. Adler]] also characterized the Court's ruling as one of several cases released in early 2016, including ''[[Luis v. United States]]'' and ''[[Bank Markazi v. Peterson]]'', that "produced some particularly interesting divisions among the justices".<ref>Jonathan H. Adler, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/02/todays-interesting-supreme-court-lineup-2/ ''Today's interesting Supreme Court lineup''] {{smallcaps|The Washington Post}} (May 2, 2016).</ref>

== See also ==
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases]]
* [[Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court]]

== References ==
{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
{{reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* {{caselaw source
 | case = ''Ocasio v. United States'', {{Ussc|578|___|2016|el=no}}
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-361/
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-361
 | other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
 | other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-361_db8e.pdf
 }}

{{US federal public corruption law}}

[[Category:2016 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court]]
[[Category:Hobbs Act case law]]