Opinion ID: 181017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Enmons Defense

Text: The Hobbs Act criminalizes conduct that in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce ... by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The Act defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. Id. § 1951(b)(2). In Enmons, the Supreme Court held that Hobbs Act liability does not extend to conduct in pursuit of legitimate labor ends. 410 U.S. at 398, 93 S.Ct. 1007. The Court held that where violence is used to achieve legitimate union objectives, there is no `wrongful' taking of the employer's property under the Hobbs Act. Id. at 400, 93 S.Ct. 1007. Conduct is wrongful under the Hobbs Act only if the obtaining of the property would itself be `wrongful' because the alleged extortionist has no lawful claim to that property. Id. Where violence occurs during a lawful strike, as in Enmons, there is no wrongful use of violence to obtain property under the Hobbs Act because even if higher wages are won, the employer has paid for the services he bargained for, and the workers receive the wages to which they are entitled in compensation for their services. Id. The Enmons Court stated that Congress did not intend the Hobbs Act to extend to violence during a strike to achieve legitimate collective-bargaining objectives. Id. at 404, 93 S.Ct. 1007. On this point, the Court found the legislative history clear. In introducing the original bill, Congressman Hobbs stated that it does not cover strikes or any question relating to strikes. Id. at 405, 93 S.Ct. 1007 (quoting 89 Cong. Rec. 3213). Further, Congressman Walter stated that the bill did not interfere in any way with any legitimate labor objective or activity. Id. at 404, 93 S.Ct. 1007 (quoting 91 Cong. Rec. 11841). Lastly, the Enmons Court found that no reported case had applied the Hobbs Act to the use of force to achieve legitimate collective-bargaining demands. Id. at 408, 93 S.Ct. 1007. Although a few cases dealt with labor unions and employers, these cases concerned the exaction, by threats and violence, of wages for superfluous services. Id. at 408-09, 93 S.Ct. 1007. The Court found that such objectives were illegitimate and the use of violence to attain them was not exempted by the Hobbs Act. Id. at 407, 93 S.Ct. 1007 (describing as illegitimate the exaction of personal payoffs, or the pursuit of `wages' for unwanted or fictitious services). Here, Markle argues that the Enmons defense is not limited to labor-management disputes and provides a defense to prosecution under the Hobbs Act for violence between unions. We disagree. As discussed below, a violent attack on members of a competing union to gain the competing union's work is not a legitimate labor union objective within the meaning of Enmons.