Se habla Español | Wir sprechen Deutsch | Mówimy po polsku
Spanish Translation German Translation Polish Translation
Contact us for your initial consultation
847.577.8700
posted on 7/5/16

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 in the United States Constitution gives Congress broad powers to regulate drug crimes, according to a 7-1 decision in Taylor v. United States.

Facts and Procedural History

In 2009, Anthony Taylor and other members of the self-styled “Southwest Goonz” staged home invasion robberies of two local marijuana dealers. At each location, Mr. Taylor and his cohorts demanded drugs and money, but left with little more than personal items, like cellphones and less than $50 in cash. The government eventually apprehended Mr. Taylor and charged him with violating the Hobbs Act, which makes it illegal to “obstruct[], delay[], or affect[ interstate] commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in [interstate] commerce, by robbery.” Mr. Taylor’s first trial ended with a hung jury. Prior to his second trial, the judge prohibited Mr. Taylor from introducing evidence that the robbery victims were local marijuana dealers, and therefore his acts did not affect interstate commerce; during the trial, the judge twice denied motions for directed verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support an interstate commerce Hobbs Act claim.

The jury found Mr. Taylor guilty, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, reasoning that “Because drug dealing in the aggregate necessarily affects interstate commerce, the government was simply required to prove that Taylor depleted or attempted to deplete the assets of such an operation.”

Decision

Since the Civil Rights era, the High Court has traditionally interpreted the commerce clause broadly. In the 1960s, a number of cases came before the Court that involved purely local establishments that discriminated against blacks, and the Justices consistently held that these “mom and pop” establishments were engaged in interstate commerce because they had at least some out-of-state patrons, used out-of-state vendors, and so on. Even today, persons violate federal child pornography laws if they never leave their basements because they send signals over the internet and use a computer that was manufactured in a different state.

Therefore, it is little surprise that in a 7-1 majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court sided with the Fourth Circuit. In addition to these more general precedents, Justice Alito heavily relied on United States v. Culbert, which says that the Hobbs Act is broad, and Gonzales v. Raich, which held that it applies to “purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority’s view of the Commerce Clause is too broad, and that “the Government in a Hobbs Act case may obtain a conviction for robbery only if it proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s robbery itself affected interstate commerce.”

Application

While the war on drugs has faded from the headlines in recent years, prosecutors are still aggressive in this area and will use every weapon in their huge legal arsenal to pursue convictions in these cases, and for the most part, judges will green-light these efforts.

Reach Out to Experienced Attorneys

At Glasgow & Olsson, we keep up with the latest trends in criminal law to prepare more effective defenses. Contact our Schaumburg office today for prompt assistance in this area; office, home, and jail visits are available.

(photo courtesy of Dodgerton Skillhaus)