page_title: Ocasio v. United States
section_title: Opinion of the Court
hierarchical_section_title: Ocasio v. United States / Opinion of the Court
caption_attribution_description: Official 2007 portrait of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito
context_page_description: Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___, 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.
  Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that a conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act can occur when an individual obtains property from another conspirator under the pretense that they have an official right to take that property.
context_section_description: Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Samuel Alito held that to be found guilty of conspiracy, a "defendant must merely reach an agreement with the 'specific intent that the underlying crime be committed' by some member of the conspiracy". He concluded that it was sufficient for the government to demonstrate that each conspirator "specifically intended that some conspirator commit each element of the substantive offense". Additionally, Justice Alito rejected Ocasio's argument that the conspiracy conviction should be reversed because Ocasio and the auto shop were simply exchanging "their own" money; instead, Justice Alito held that the convictions were justified because other Baltimore police officers were involved in the underlying substantive violations. 
  Justice Alito also rejected Ocasio's argument that the Court's "interpretation makes the Hobbs Act sweep too broadly, creating a national antibribery law and displacing a carefully crafted network of state and federal statutes". In Evans v. United States, the Court had explained that an act of extortion under the Hobbs act was the "rough equivalent" of bribery. Because Ocasio did not ask the court to overrule Evans and because the Court had "no occasion to do so" sua sponte, Justice Alito held that "we have no principled basis for precluding the prosecution of conspiracies to commit" extortion under the Hobbs act. Justice Alito also rejected the argument that the Court's ruling would "transform every bribe of a public official into a conspiracy to commit extortion" because "[i]n cases where the bribe payor is merely complying with an official demand, the payor lacks the mens rea necessary for a conspiracy". Consequently, because Ocasio entered into an agreement to extort money "under color of official right", the Court affirmed Ocasio's conviction.
caption: In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito (pictured) held that it was sufficient for the government to demonstrate that at least one member of the conspiracy intended to commit extortion.[16]
exif: {"Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image XResolution": "72", "Image YResolution": "72", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image Software": "Adobe Photoshop 7.0", "Image DateTime": "2013:03:26 16:04:08", "Image ExifOffset": "156", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "72", "Thumbnail YResolution": "72", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "294", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "3398", "EXIF ColorSpace": "Uncalibrated", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "2400", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "3000"}