This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The petitioners ask the Court to reverse the jury verdicts and enter judgment for the defendants if it agrees with the Hobbs Act arguments.
Even if the Court follows the arguments in the red and gray briefs, the petitioners say it should still reverse the verdicts and order a new trial.
The petitioners argue that the RICO injunction should be reversed because RICO does not authorize private injunctive relief.
Ms. Clayton argues that private parties have long possessed the right to seek divestiture of a business under antitrust law, predating RICO.
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), the right to control a business, whether or not for profit, is a well‑recognized and longstanding property interest.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice (unnamed), according to Justice (unnamed), justices questioned the distinction between coercion and extortion.
According to Justice, justices asked whether private parties can compel a court to divest a person of any direct or indirect interest in a business.
According to Justice, justices inquired whether the Hobbs Act includes deprivation of liberty interests.
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Arguments
According to Petitioners, if the Court agrees with the Hobbs Act arguments, it should reverse the jury verdicts and enter judgment for the defendants.
According to Petitioners, even if the Court follows the arguments in the red and gray briefs, it should still reverse and order a new trial.
According to Petitioners, the RICO injunction should be reversed because RICO does not authorize private injunctive relief.
According to MS. CLAYTON, private parties have long possessed the right to seek divestiture of a business under antitrust law, predating RICO.
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), the right to control a business, whether or not for profit, is a well‑recognized and longstanding property interest.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice (unnamed), according to Justice (unnamed), justices questioned the distinction between coercion and extortion.
According to Justice, justices asked whether private parties can compel a court to divest a person of any direct or indirect interest in a business.
According to Justice, justices inquired whether the Hobbs Act includes deprivation of liberty interests.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
- extortion
- Extortion is the taking of property by coercion; it differs from coercion that targets a First Amendment right because it is focused on property.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d61c583159415bdbe6b1-r1-c05e2a2ea10f6cec.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.