Opinion ID: 12932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality of the Hobbs Act Under Lopez Part I

Text: 76 Taking into consideration the plain language of the Hobbs Act itself, the insights given by its legislative history, and the language of the Supreme Court in Lopez, I pass quickly over Lopez Part I because I can see no basis in law or fact for finding that the food outlets where the robberies occurred in this case were channels of interstate commerce. The meaning of the term channel of interstate commerce, Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558, must refer to the navigable rivers, lakes, and canals of the United States; the interstate railroad track system; the interstate highway system; the interstate pipeline systems; interstate telephone and telegraph lines; air traffic routes; television and radio broadcast frequencies; and satellite communication frequencies on, over, and through which flow the goods, commodities, and information which constitute commerce between places in different states. There is no evidence or testimony whatsoever in this case that would permit a conclusion that any of the retail food outlets in this case constituted a channel of interstate commerce. Under Part I of Lopez, therefore, the Hobbs Act is facially constitutional, but nothing supports the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act as applied to the facts in this case. 77