David Anthony TAYLOR, petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 14-6166.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Feb. 23, 2016.
Decided June 20, 2016.
Dennis E. Jones, Abingdon, VA, for petitioner.
Anthony A. Yang, Washington, DC, for respondent.
Seth C. Weston, Gilbert, Bird & Weston, Roanoke, VA, Dennis E. Jones, Dennis E. Jones, P.L.C., Abingdon, VA, for petitioner.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, David B. Goodhand, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Hobbs Act makes 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 interstate commerce "and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." § 1951(b)(3). This case requires us to decide what the Government must prove to satisfy the Hobbs Act's commerce element when a defendant commits a robbery that targets a marijuana dealer's drugs or drug proceeds.
The answer to this question is straightforward and dictated by our precedent. We held in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), that the Commerce Clause gives Congress authority to regulate the national market for marijuana, including the authority to proscribe the purely intrastate production, possession, and sale of this controlled substance. Because Congress may regulate these intrastate activities based on their aggregate effect on interstate commerce, it follows that Congress may also regulate intrastate drug theft . And since the Hobbs Act criminalizes robberies and attempted robberies that affect any commerce "over which the United States has jurisdiction," § 1951(b)(3), the prosecution in a Hobbs Act robbery case satisfies the Act's commerce element if it shows that the defendant robbed or attempted to rob a drug dealer of drugs or drug proceeds. By targeting a drug dealer in this way, a robber necessarily affects or attempts to affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
In this case, petitioner Anthony Taylor was convicted on two Hobbs Act counts based on proof that he attempted to rob marijuana dealers of their drugs and drug money. We hold that this evidence was sufficient to satisfy the Act's commerce element.
I
Beginning as early as 2009, an outlaw gang called the "Southwest Goonz" committed a series of home invasion robberies targeting drug dealers in the area of Roanoke, Virginia. 754 F.3d 217, 220 (C.A.4 2014). For obvious reasons, drug dealers are more likely than ordinary citizens to keep large quantities of cash and illegal drugs in their homes and are less likely to report robberies to the police. For participating in two such home invasions, Taylor was convicted of two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of § 924(c).
The first attempted drug robbery for which Taylor was convicted occurred in August 2009. Id ., at 220. Taylor and others targeted the home of Josh Whorley, having obtained information that Whorley dealt "exotic and high grade" marijuana. Ibid. "The robbers expected to find both drugs and money" in Whorley's home. Ibid. Taylor and the others broke into the home, searched it, and assaulted Whorley and his girlfriend. They demanded to be told the location of money and drugs but, not locating any, left with only jewelry, $40, two cell phones, and a marijuana cigarette. Ibid.
The second attempted drug robbery occurred two months later in October 2009 at the home of William Lynch. Ibid. A source informed the leader of the gang that, on a prior occasion, the source had robbed Lynch of 20 pounds of marijuana in front of Lynch's home. The gang also received information that Lynch continued to deal drugs. Taylor and others broke into Lynch's home, held his wife and young children at gunpoint, assaulted his wife, and demanded to know the location of his drugs and money. Again largely unsuccessful, the robbers made off with only a cell phone. Id., at 221.
For his participation in these two home invasions, Taylor was indicted under the Hobbs Act on two counts of affecting commerce or attempting to do so through robbery. App. 11a-13a. His first trial resulted in a hung jury. On retrial, at the urging of the Government, the District Court precluded Taylor from introducing evidence that the drug dealers he targeted might be dealing in only locally grown marijuana. Id., at 60a; see 754 F.3d, at 221. During the second trial, Taylor twice moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution had failed to meet its burden on the commerce element, Tr. 445-447, 532-533; see 754 F.3d, at 221, but the District Court denied those motions, holding that the proof that Taylor attempted to rob drug dealers was sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy that element. Tr. 446, 532-533. The jury found Taylor guilty on both of the Hobbs Act counts and one of the firearms counts. App. 67a-69a.
On appeal, Taylor challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the commerce element of the Hobbs Act, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed. "Because drug dealing in the aggregate necessarily affects interstate commerce," the court reasoned, "the government was simply required to prove that Taylor depleted or attempted to deplete the assets of such an operation." 754 F.3d, at 224.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits regarding the demands of the Hobbs Act's commerce element in cases involving the theft of drugs and drug proceeds from drug dealers. 576 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 26, 192 L.Ed.2d 998 (2015).
II
A
The Hobbs Act provides in relevant part as follows:
"Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery ... or attempts or conspires so to do ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
The Act then defines the term "commerce" to mean
"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." § 1951(b)(3).
The language of the Hobbs Act is unmistakably broad. It reaches any obstruction, delay, or other effect on commerce, even if small, and the Act's definition of commerce encompasses "all ... commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." Ibid. We have noted the sweep of the Act in past cases. United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371, 373, 98 S.Ct. 1112, 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978) ("These words do not lend themselves to restrictive interpretation"); Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960) (The Hobbs Act "speaks in broad language, manifesting a purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence").
B
To determine how far this commerce element extends-and what the Government must prove to meet it-we look to our Commerce Clause cases. We have said that there are three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power: (1) "the use of the channels of interstate commerce"; (2) "the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities"; and (3) "those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, ... i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-559, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). We have held that activities in this third category-those that "substantially affect" commerce-may be regulated so long as they substantially affect interstate commerce in the aggregate, even if their individual impact on interstate commerce is minimal. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942) ("[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce").
While this final category is broad, "thus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature." United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 613, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000).
In this case, the activity at issue, the sale of marijuana, is unquestionably an economic activity. It is, to be sure, a form of business that is illegal under federal law and the laws of most States. But there can be no question that marijuana trafficking is a moneymaking endeavor-and a potentially lucrative one at that.
In Raich, the Court addressed Congress's authority to regulate the marijuana market. The Court reaffirmed "Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." 545 U.S., at 17, 125 S.Ct. 2195. The production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances constitute a "class of activities" that in the aggregate substantially affect interstate commerce, and therefore, the Court held, Congress possesses the authority to regulate (and to criminalize) the production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances even when those activities occur entirely within the boundaries of a single State. Any other outcome, we warned, would leave a gaping enforcement hole in Congress's regulatory scheme. Id., at 22, 125 S.Ct. 2195.
The case now before us requires no more than that we graft our holding in Raich onto the commerce element of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act criminalizes robberies affecting "commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." § 1951(b)(3). Under Raich, the market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is "commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." It therefore follows as a simple matter of logic that a robber who affects or attempts to affect even the intrastate sale of marijuana grown within the State affects or attempts to affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
C
Rejecting this logic, Taylor takes the position that the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer's inventory violates the Hobbs Act only if the Government proves something more. This argument rests in part on the fact that Raich concerned the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the criminal provisions of which lack a jurisdictional element. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844. The Hobbs Act, by contrast, contains such an element-namely, the conduct criminalized must affect or attempt to affect commerce in some way or degree. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Therefore, Taylor reasons, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either (1) that the particular drugs in question originated or were destined for sale out of State or (2) that the particular drug dealer targeted in the robbery operated an interstate business. See Brief for Petitioner 25-27; Reply Brief 8. The Second and Seventh Circuits have adopted this same argument. See United States v. Needham, 604 F.3d 673, 681 (C.A.2 2010) ; United States v. Peterson, 236 F.3d 848, 855 (C.A.7 2001).
This argument is flawed. It confuses the standard of proof with the meaning of the element that must be proved. There is no question that the Government in a Hobbs Act prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in conduct that satisfies the Act's commerce element, but the meaning of that element is a question of law. And, as noted, Raich established that the purely intrastate production and sale of marijuana is commerce over which the Federal Government has jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a robber targeted a marijuana dealer's drugs or illegal proceeds, the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction was affected.
The only way to escape that conclusion would be to hold that the Hobbs Act does not exercise the full measure of Congress's commerce power. But we reached the opposite conclusion more than 50 years ago, see Stirone, 361 U.S., at 215, 80 S.Ct. 270 and it is not easy to see how the expansive language of the Act could be interpreted in any other way.
This conclusion does not make the commerce provision of the Hobbs Act superfluous. That statute, unlike the criminal provisions of the CSA, applies to forms of conduct that, even in the aggregate, may not substantially affect commerce. The Act's commerce element ensures that applications of the Act do not exceed Congress's authority. But in a case like this one, where the target of a robbery is a drug dealer, proof that the defendant's conduct in and of itself affected or threatened commerce is not needed. All that is needed is proof that the defendant's conduct fell within a category of conduct that, in the aggregate, had the requisite effect.
D
Contrary to the dissent, see post, at 2087 - 2088 (opinion of THOMAS, J.), today's holding merely applies-it in no way expands-Raich 's interpretation of the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The dissent resists the substantial-effects approach and the aggregation principle on which Raich is based, see post, at 2087 - 2088. But we have not been asked to reconsider Raich . So our decision in Raich controls the outcome here. As long as Congress may regulate the purely intrastate possession and sale of illegal drugs, Congress may criminalize the theft or attempted theft of those same drugs.
We reiterate what this means. In order to obtain a conviction under the Hobbs Act for the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer, the Government need not show that the drugs that a defendant stole or attempted to steal either traveled or were destined for transport across state lines. Rather, to satisfy the Act's commerce element, it is enough that a defendant knowingly stole or attempted to steal drugs or drug proceeds, for, as a matter of law, the market for illegal drugs is "commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." And it makes no difference under our cases that any actual or threatened effect on commerce in a particular case is minimal. See Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971) ("Where the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power 'to excise, as trivial, individual instances' of the class" (emphasis deleted)).
E
In the present case, the Government met its burden by introducing evidence that Taylor's gang intentionally targeted drug dealers to obtain drugs and drug proceeds. One of the victims had been robbed of substantial quantities of drugs at his residence in the past, and the other was thought to possess high-grade marijuana. The robbers also made explicit statements in the course of the robberies revealing that they believed that the victims possessed drugs and drug proceeds. Tr. 359 (asking Lynch "where the weed at"); id ., at 93 (asking Whorley "where the money was at, where the weed was at"); id ., at 212-213 (asking Whorley, "Where is your money and where is your weed at?"). Both robberies were committed with the express intent to obtain illegal drugs and the proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. Such proof is sufficient to meet the commerce element of the Hobbs Act.
Our holding today is limited to cases in which the defendant targets drug dealers for the purpose of stealing drugs or drug proceeds. We do not resolve what the Government must prove to establish Hobbs Act robbery where some other type of business or victim is targeted. See, e.g., Stirone, supra, at 215, 80 S.Ct. 270 (Government offered evidence that the defendant attempted to extort a concrete business that actually obtained supplies and materials from out of State).
* * *
The judgment of the Fourth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Military Review U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals U.S. Customs Court U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit U.S. Tax Court Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. Court for China U.S. Consular Courts U.S. Commerce Court Territorial Supreme Court Territorial Appellate Court Territorial Trial Court Emergency Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Bankruptcy Court U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction) Alabama Middle U.S. District Court Alabama Northern U.S. District Court Alabama Southern U.S. District Court Alaska U.S. District Court Arizona U.S. District Court Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court Arkansas Western U.S. District Court California Central U.S. District Court California Eastern U.S. District Court California Northern U.S. District Court California Southern U.S. District Court Colorado U.S. District Court Connecticut U.S. District Court Delaware U.S. District Court District Of Columbia U.S. District Court Florida Middle U.S. District Court Florida Northern U.S. District Court Florida Southern U.S. District Court Georgia Middle U.S. District Court Georgia Northern U.S. District Court Georgia Southern U.S. District Court Guam U.S. District Court Hawaii U.S. District Court Idaho U.S. District Court Illinois Central U.S. District Court Illinois Northern U.S. District Court Illinois Southern U.S. District Court Indiana Northern U.S. District Court Indiana Southern U.S. District Court Iowa Northern U.S. District Court Iowa Southern U.S. District Court Kansas U.S. District Court Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court Kentucky Western U.S. District Court Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court Louisiana Western U.S. District Court Maine U.S. District Court Maryland U.S. District Court Massachusetts U.S. District Court Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court Michigan Western U.S. District Court Minnesota U.S. District Court Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court Missouri Western U.S. District Court Montana U.S. District Court Nebraska U.S. District Court Nevada U.S. District Court New Hampshire U.S. District Court New Jersey U.S. District Court New Mexico U.S. District Court New York Eastern U.S. District Court New York Northern U.S. District Court New York Southern U.S. District Court New York Western U.S. District Court North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court North Carolina Western U.S. District Court North Dakota U.S. District Court Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court Ohio Northern U.S. District Court Ohio Southern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court Oregon U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court Puerto Rico U.S. District Court Rhode Island U.S. District Court South Carolina U.S. District Court South Dakota U.S. District Court Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court Tennessee Western U.S. District Court Texas Eastern U.S. District Court Texas Northern U.S. District Court Texas Southern U.S. District Court Texas Western U.S. District Court Utah U.S. District Court Vermont U.S. District Court Virgin Islands U.S. District Court Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court Virginia Western U.S. District Court Washington Eastern U.S. District Court Washington Western U.S. District Court West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court Wyoming U.S. District Court Louisiana U.S. District Court Washington U.S. District Court West Virginia U.S. District Court Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Western U.S. District Court Alabama U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone Georgia U.S. District Court Illinois U.S. District Court Indiana U.S. District Court Iowa U.S. District Court Michigan U.S. District Court Mississippi U.S. District Court Missouri U.S. District Court New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court) New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court) New York U.S. District Court North Carolina U.S. District Court Ohio U.S. District Court Pennsylvania U.S. District Court Tennessee U.S. District Court Texas U.S. District Court Virginia U.S. District Court Norfolk U.S. District Court Wisconsin U.S. District Court Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court New Jersey U.S. District Court California U.S. District Court Florida U.S. District Court Arkansas U.S. District Court District of Orleans U.S. District Court State Supreme Court State Appellate Court State Trial Court Eastern Circuit (of the United States) Middle Circuit (of the United States) Southern Circuit (of the United States) Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming Circuit Court of the District of Columbia Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma Court of Private Land Claims United States Supreme Court