Sekhar v. United States

Last updated
Sekhar v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 23, 2013
Decided June 26, 2013
Full case nameTejas C. Sekhar, petitioner, v. United States
Docket no. 12-357
Citations570 U.S. 729 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 2720; 186 L. Ed. 2d 794; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4920, 81 U.S.L.W. 4628
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, United States v. Sekhar, 1:10-cr-00573 (N.D.N.Y. 2011); affirmed, 683 F.3d 436 (2nd Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1119(2013).
Holding
Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” under the Hobbs Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment), joined by Kennedy, Sotomayor
Laws applied
Hobbs Act (1946)

Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding extortion under the Hobbs Act of 1946. [1] [2]

Contents

Details

Giridhar C. Sekhar was a partner at a venture capital firm based in Brookline, Mass. In 2009, Sekhar sent multiple emails to Luke Bierman, who was at the time legal counsel to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. According to the emails obtained from Sekhar's home computer by the FBI, Sekhar demanded that Bierman advise the comptroller to commit to a $35 million retirement fund investment at Sekhar's firm, threatening to reveal details of Bierman's alleged extra-marital affair to his wife, DiNapoli, and the media. [3]

After initially being charged with coercion under state law, Sekhar was tried and convicted for attempted extortion under the federal Hobbs act. Sekhar's lawyers contended that the advice of a lawyer employed by the state was not a form of property that could be sought by threats, and hence that the extortion charge was not applicable in this case. The argument was refuted by a federal district court judge and by the Second Circuit court on appeal. [4] [5] Sekhar's lawyers then approached the United States Supreme Court in September 2012.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. The Court held that legal advice could not be considered to be "transferable property" and therefore did not fit the definition of extortion under the Hobbs Act.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antonin Scalia</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1986 to 2016

Antonin Gregory Scalia was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. He was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative wing. For catalyzing an originalist and textualist movement in American law, he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the history of the Supreme Court. Scalia was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018, and the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University was named in his honor.

The Antonin Scalia Law School is the law school of George Mason University, a public research university in Virginia. It is located in Arlington, Virginia, roughly 4 miles (6.4 km) west of Washington, D.C., and 15 miles (24 km) east-northeast of George Mason University's main campus in Fairfax, Virginia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Clement</span> American lawyer (born 1966)

Paul Drew Clement is an American lawyer who served as U.S. Solicitor General from 2004 to 2008 and is known for his advocacy before the U.S. Supreme Court. He established his own law firm, Clement & Murphy, in 2022 after leaving Kirkland & Ellis, following that firm’s decision to end its Second Amendment work. He is also a Distinguished Lecturer in Law at Georgetown University and an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on March 14, 2005, for the post of Solicitor General, confirmed by the United States Senate on June 8, 2005, and took the oath of office on June 13.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a lengthy and high-profile U.S. legal case interpreting and applying the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): a law originally drafted to combat the mafia and organized crime, the Hobbs Act: an anti-extortion law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence, and the Travel Act: a law prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hobbs Act</span>

The Hobbs Act, named after United States Representative Sam Hobbs (D-AL) and codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is a United States federal law enacted in 1946 that prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion that affect interstate or foreign commerce. It also forbids conspiracy to do so.

Smiley v. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735 (1996), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a regulation of the Comptroller of Currency which included credit card late fees and other penalties within the definition of interest and thus prevented individual states from limiting them when charged by nationally-chartered banks. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a unanimous court that the regulation was reasonable enough under the Court's own Chevron standard for the justices to defer to the Comptroller.

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning contract law and arbitration. The case arose from a class action filed in Florida against a payday lender alleging the loan agreements the plaintiffs had signed were unenforceable because they essentially charged a higher interest rate than that permitted under Florida law.

In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional. The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public-easement condition was a legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by the home renovation, even though the easement wouldn't create any additional public view of the ocean. The Court held that in evaluating such claims, there must be an "essential nexus" between a legitimate state interest and the actual conditions of the permit being issued.

Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, L.L.C., 557 U.S. 519 (2009), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. In a 5–4 decision, the court determined that a federal banking regulation did not pre-empt the ability of states to enforce their own fair-lending laws. The Court determined that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is the sole regulator of national banks but it does not have the authority under the National Bank Act to pre-empt state law enforcement against national banks.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2012 term, which began October 1, 2012 and concluded October 6, 2013.

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor. The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016) is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Josh Blackman</span> American lawyer and law professor

Joshua Michael Blackman is an American lawyer who is employed as an associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law where he focuses on constitutional law and the intersection of law and technology. He has authored three books.

References

  1. Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729 (2013).
  2. Gottlieb, Mike (June 26, 2013). "Details: Sekhar v. United States". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved 7 July 2013.
  3. Gavin, Robert (June 27, 2013). "U.S. Supreme Court says threat to OSC officer wasn't extortion". Times Union. Retrieved 7 July 2013.
  4. United States v. Sekhar, 683F.3d436 ( 2nd Cir. 2012).
  5. Denniston, Lyle (April 22, 2013). "Legal advice as property". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved 7 July 2013.