United States v. James McFarland Jr.
2002 WL 31422291, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22464, 311 F.3d 376 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
By an equally divided en banc court, the robbery of a local business that deals in goods that have moved in interstate commerce maintains a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to support a conviction under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
Facts:
- James McFarland, Jr. robbed four local retail establishments in Fort Worth, Texas, over a one-month period.
- The four establishments were a Buy-Low convenience store, a Gateway Discount Liquor store, a Quickway Shopping convenience store, and a Jeff Stop convenience store.
- The amounts of cash taken from the registers were relatively small, ranging from approximately $50 to $2,000.
- Each of the four stores was a local retail store, not located near any interstate transportation facility or highway.
- The stores sold various items, such as beer, juice, and snacks, that were originally manufactured or processed in states other than Texas.
- The stores acquired this inventory from in-state Texas wholesalers, not directly from out-of-state suppliers.
- There was no evidence that any of the robberies actually caused the victim stores to reduce or delay the purchase of any inventory.
Procedural Posture:
- James McFarland, Jr. was charged by indictment in the United States District Court with Hobbs Act robbery and related firearm counts.
- A jury convicted McFarland on four Hobbs Act counts and four corresponding firearm counts.
- McFarland appealed his convictions to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The panel affirmed the convictions, stating it was bound by circuit precedent, but a special concurrence urged the full court to reconsider the issue.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted McFarland's petition for rehearing en banc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, consistent with the Commerce Clause, apply to robberies of local retail stores where the only connection to interstate commerce is the depletion of assets that could have been used to purchase goods originating from out-of-state?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. Due to an equally divided en banc court, the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed without explanation.
Dissenting - Garwood
No. The application of the Hobbs Act to these prototypically local robberies exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. These cases establish that Congress can only regulate intrastate activities that 'substantially affect' interstate commerce. The individual robberies here clearly did not have a substantial effect, and the government's attempt to satisfy this requirement by aggregating the economic impact of all such robberies nationwide is improper. Lopez and Morrison rejected aggregation for non-economic, violent criminal conduct, like robbery, which has traditionally been the sole province of state police power. Unlike the statutes in cases like Wickard v. Filburn, the Hobbs Act is not part of a larger regulatory scheme of a specific interstate market that would be undercut if individual instances were not regulated. Allowing aggregation here would erase any meaningful distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, effectively federalizing all robberies.
Dissenting - Jones
No. The dissent agrees with Judges Garwood and Higginbotham and criticizes the eight affirming judges for their silence. This silence is a dereliction of their judicial duty to provide reasoned explanations for their decisions, especially in a case with significant constitutional implications for federalism. By affirming without opinion, the court ensures there is no principled limit on the federal prosecution of local robberies, even of a 'proverbial lemonade stand.' The opinion then outlines and refutes the various, and mutually conflicting, arguments the affirming judges might have privately held, such as incorrectly classifying robbery as an 'economic activity' to justify aggregation or misinterpreting the Hobbs Act's jurisdictional element as a substitute for a substantial effect on commerce.
Concurring - Higginbotham
No. Concurring with the dissent, this opinion argues for reversal on alternative grounds of judicial restraint, specifically the doctrine of clear statement. Before reaching the difficult constitutional question of congressional power, the court should require Congress to make an 'unmistakably clear statement' of its intention to regulate purely local crimes that upset the traditional federal-state balance. The Hobbs Act, with its tautological jurisdictional language claiming power over 'all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction,' lacks such a clear statement. Therefore, the court should refuse to apply the Act to this type of local robbery until Congress explicitly and clearly states its intent to do so.
Concurring - Davis & Benavides
Yes. Concurring in the affirmance, this opinion briefly disclaims the views attributed to the affirming judges by the dissent and questions the appropriateness of the dissenters' criticism of their colleagues' choice not to write an opinion explaining their vote.
Analysis:
This case highlights the profound division in the federal judiciary over the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause power after Lopez and Morrison. The 8-8 split, resulting in an affirmance without a majority opinion, left the Fifth Circuit's prior precedent allowing Hobbs Act prosecutions for local robberies intact, but demonstrated its fragility. The powerful dissents articulated a significant challenge to the 'depletion of assets' theory, arguing that it improperly federalizes a core state crime and cannot be squared with the Supreme Court's reinvigorated federalism jurisprudence. The case underscores the unresolved tension between the broad language of the Hobbs Act and the constitutional limits on federal power, making the issue ripe for Supreme Court clarification.
