Document: 471 U.S. 858 105 S.Ct. 2455 85 L.Ed.2d 829 Robert RUSSELL, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 84-435. Argued April 24, 1985. Decided June 3, Syllabus Title 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) makes it a crime to maliciously damage or destroy, attempt by means of fire an explosive, "any building . used in any activity affecting interstate foreign commerce." Petitioner, who was earning rental income from two-unit apartment and treated as business property for tax purposes, convicted violating after he unsuccessfully attempted set the building, conviction affirmed on appeal. Both District Court Appeals rejected his contention that not commercial property, therefore capable being subject offense under 844(i). Held: Section applies petitioner's building. The language statute expresses intent Congress exercise its full power Commerce Clause, legislative history indicates at least intended protect all "business property." real estate is unquestionably affects commerce purposes statute, congressional regulate class activities constitute market includes individual within class, such local unit. Pp. 859-862. 738 F.2d 825, affirmed. Julius Lucius Echeles, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion 1 question presented whether property. 2 Petitioner owns located 4530 South Union, Illinois. He earned purposes. In early 1983, made unsuccessful building1 consequently indicted Following bench trial, petitioner sentenced 10 years' imprisonment. Court2 Appeals3 both 3 uses broad define offense. It provides: 4 "Whoever damages destroys, attempts vehicle, other personal shall be imprisoned more than ten years fined $10,000, both. ." 5 reference commerce" Clause.4 6 property."5 Moreover, considering bill originally introduced would cover bombings police stations churches,6 revised eliminate words "for purposes" description covered property.7 Even change, however, final Report emphasized "very broad" coverage "substantially property."8 floor debates bill, although recognized extremely broad, Committee Chairman, Representative Celler, expressed "the mere bombing private home even this because have authority Constitution."9 sum, suggests well some additional might fit description, but perhaps every home. 7 By terms, only "used" "activity" commerce. activity. We need rely connection between residential units movement people,"10 recognize unit merely element much broader properties. class.11 8 renting tenants time destroy fire. meaning 9 judgment so ordered. hired Ralph Branch, felon, start using natural gas line basement. Branch lighting potato-chip bag piece wood, torching Tr. 35-39. asked make second attempt; reported events Federal Bureau Investigation consented tape-record conversation with After conversation, arrested. never set. Id., 41-50. 563 F.Supp. 1085 (ND ED 1983). 825 (CA7 1984). See Scarborough v. United States, 431 563, 571, 97 1963, 1967, 52 582 (1977), which stated: "As we previously observed, aware 'distinction legislation limited "in assertion Clause substantially commerce.' States American Bldg. Maintenance Industries, 422 271, 280 [95 2150, 2156, 45 177] (1975); see also NLRB Reliance Fuel Corp., 371 224, 226 [83 312, 313, 279] (1963)." passed part XI Organized Crime Control Act 1970. 84 Stat. 922, 952. section originated "to curb use, transportation, possession explosives." Hearings H.R. 17154, 16699, 18573 Related Proposals before Subcommittee House Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., (1970) (hereinafter Hearings). hearings Subcommittee, emerged two bills, McCullough Representatives were referred Judiciary. 116 Cong.Rec. 35198 (statement Rep. McCullough). 16699 stated, pertinent part: "(f) Whoever person engaged Hearings, 30 (emphasis added). During there several discussions statements reach subsection (f) 16699. Will R. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department Justice, stated hearings: "[W]e added new provision (subsection (f)) covering malicious destruction explosive Since term 'affecting commerce' embraces 'the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible clause,' (1963), explosives 37. Shortly General Wilson comment quoted n. 5, supra, Rodino New Jersey following colloquy Wilson: "Mr. Rodino. That problem. Mr. 837, proposed structures 'for purposes.' I am little bit dark. Would these stations? Just what 837(f) cover? Wilson. don't believe either public buildings homes normal designed office, where commerce, giving Government basis jurisdiction. broaden thing, get things offices York City, apply churches, synagogues, religious edifices? think so." 56. id., 300: "The Chairman. you want dwelling church business. Wylie. As far concerned could out purposes,' help situation. phrase included when Judiciary amended S. those omitted finally enacted. "Section proscribes damaging destroying, Attempts covered. [interstate foreign] 'commerce' represents Clause,' very H.R.Rep. 91-1549, pp. 69-70 (1970), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4007, 4046. 35359 (1970); ("[T]he committee extended protecting use extent our constitutional powers") McCullough); 37187 ("The law greatly making unlawful Nearly types will now protected law") MacGregor). McLain Real Estate Board Orleans, 444 232, 245, 100 502, 510, 62 441 (1980). 11 Perez 402 146, 153-154, 91 1357, 1361, 28 686 (1971).

Category: 0