October Term 2015 · Docket 14-361

Does a Hobbs Act conspiracy require obtaining property from a third party?

The dispute centers on whether a defendant can violate the Hobbs Act by conspiring with property owners to take their own property.

Official caption
Ocasio v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ethan Davis argued the Hobbs Act requires obtaining property from another person.

    Davis stated Ocasio was charged with taking property from the owners themselves.

    Davis claimed the plain language of the statute resolves the case in his favor.

    Davis argued a unity of purpose obscures the requirement to take from another.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Ocasio faces charges for conspiring with repair shop owners. The government claims this violates the Hobbs Act. Ocasio argues the law requires taking property from a third party.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 6, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Ocasio wants the conviction overturned because the law requires taking property from a third party.

The United States wants the conviction upheld because the conspiracy satisfied all statutory elements.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Ocasio argues the plain language of the Hobbs Act requires obtaining property from another person.

The United States argues a conspiracy to commit an offense satisfies the statute even if the victim is a co-conspirator.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked if the phrase any woman is broader than another woman.

Justice Kagan asked if it is natural to say a transported woman is transporting any woman.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal extortion laws. It clarifies who qualifies as a victim under the statute. The outcome shapes how prosecutors charge conspiracy cases involving property owners.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON