| Ocasio v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 6, 2015 Decided May 2, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Samuel Ocasio, Petitioner v. United States of America |
| Docket no. | 14–361 |
| Citations | 578 U.S. ___ (more) 136 S. Ct. 1423; 194 L. Ed. 2d 520 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Ocasio, 750 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1491 (2015). |
| Holding | |
| A defendant may be charged with conspiracy to commit extortion even though the ones being extorted are part of the extortion scheme. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Breyer |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts |
| Laws applied | |
| Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1951. | |
Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy.[1] The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments.[2] 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.[3]
Writing for a majority of the Court, 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.[4] 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".[5] 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.[6] 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.[7] Although some commentators have stated that the case is consistent with precedent,[8] at least one commentator has suggested that the case will "raise more questions than answers."[9]
- ^ Ocasio v. United States, No. 14-361, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 5, 18 (2016).
- ^ Ocasio, slip op. at 2.
- ^ Ocasio, slip op. at 3. 11–14.
- ^ Ocasio, slip op. at 1, 18.
- ^ Ocasio, slip op. at 1–2 (Breyer, J., concurring) (noting that he ""join[ed] the majority's opinion in full.").
- ^ Ocasio, slip op. at 1, 3–6 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
- ^ Ocasio, slip op. at 1, 11 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
- ^ See, e.g., Randall Eliason, Response, The Contortionist Extortionist: Response to United States v. Ocasio, Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (May 10, 2016).
- ^ Rory Little, Opinion analysis: Federal conspiracy law reaches persons who agree to obtain secret kickbacks from a member of the conspiracy, SCOTUSblog (May 2, 2016) (internal quotations omitted).