| United States v. Enmons | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 4, 1972 Decided February 22, 1973 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Enmons |
| Citations | 410 U.S. 396 (more) 93 S. Ct. 1007; 35 L. Ed. 2d 379 |
| Holding | |
| The Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion, does not reach the use of violence (which is readily punishable under state law) to achieve legitimate union objectives. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| Hobbs Act | |
United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the federal Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934, known as the Hobbs Act, does not cover union violence in furtherance of the union's objectives.
The case involved a labor strike in which members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) fired rifles at three utility company transformers, drained the oil from another, and blew up a company substation. The labor union in question was seeking a higher-pay contract and other benefits from their employer, the Gulf States Utilities Company which is now part of Entergy. The federal government tried the defendants under the Hobbs Act.
The Court ruled that "The Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion, does not reach the use of violence (which is readily punishable under state law) to achieve legitimate union objectives, such as higher wages in return for genuine services that the employer seeks."[1]