October Term 2015 · Docket 14-6166
Does the Hobbs Act cover local drug robberies?
the side that brought the case argues the Hobbs Act excludes purely local drug robberies. The government claims federal jurisdiction covers all such crimes.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Jones argued the Hobbs Act has two elements. One is the robbery itself. The other is interference with commerce.
Mr. Yang argued three characteristics show the case fits Commerce Clause power.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-18 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 44-24 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 44-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-14
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the reach of federal robbery laws. It asks if Congress can regulate local drug crimes under the Commerce Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-18 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 23, 2016.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned. They argue the crime was purely local.
The government wants the conviction upheld. They argue federal law covers this robbery.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-18 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
What each side says
the side that brought the case claims the Hobbs Act requires proof of interstate commerce impact.
The government asserts the Hobbs Act covers all drug-related robberies regardless of location.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-18 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
What the justices asked
Justice Kagan asked if exclusive intrastate dealing changes the Hobbs Act analysis.
Justice Ginsburg questioned how to prove marijuana was grown in a specific state.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 44-24 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 44-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-14
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary of federal criminal power. It determines whether local drug crimes fall under federal jurisdiction. The outcome shapes the scope of the Commerce Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-18 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 44-24 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 44-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-14
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-18 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 46-18 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 46-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.