U.S. v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 01 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94251 |
| Citation | 131 L.Ed.2d 714,115 S.Ct. 1732,514 U.S. 669 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Juan Paul ROBERTSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Drew S. Days, III, Sol. Gen., Jo Ann Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael R. Dreeben, Acting Deputy Sol. Gen., Miguel A. Estrada, Asst. to the Sol. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Glenn Stewart Warren (Appointed by this Court), San Diego, CA, for respondent.
Respondent, Juan Paul Robertson, was charged with various narcotics offenses, and with violating § 1962(a) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V), by investing the proceeds of those unlawful activities in the "acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). He was convicted on some of the narcotics counts, and on the RICO count by reason of his investment in a certain gold mine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the RICO conviction on the ground that the Government had failed to introduce sufficient evidence proving that the gold mine was "engaged in or affect[ed] interstate commerce". 15 F.3d 862, 868 (1994). We granted the United States' petition for certiorari. 513 U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 354, 130 L.Ed.2d 309 (1994).
The facts relevant to the "engaged in or affecting interstate commerce" issue were as follows: Some time in 1985, Robertson entered into a partnership agreement with another man, whereby he agreed to finance a goldmining operation in Alaska. In fulfillment of this obligation, Robertson, who resided in Arizona, made a cash payment of $125,000 for placer gold mining claims near Fairbanks. He paid approximately $100,000 (in cash) for mining equipment and supplies, some of which were purchased in Los Angeles and transported to Alaska for use in the mine. Robertson also hired and paid the expenses for seven out-of-state employees to travel to Alaska to work in the mine. The partnership dissolved during the first mining season, but Robertson continued to operate the mine through 1987 as a sole proprietorship. He again hired a number of employees from outside Alaska to work in the mine. During its operating life, the mine produced between $200,000 and $290,000 worth of gold, most of which was sold to refiners within Alaska, although Robertson personally transported approximately $30,000 worth of gold out of the State.
Most of the parties' arguments, here and in the Ninth Circuit, were addressed to the question whether the activities of the gold mine "affected" interstate commerce. We have concluded we do not have to consider that point. The "affecting commerce" test was developed in our jurisprudence to define the extent of Congress's power over purely intra
state commercial activities that nonetheless have substantial interstate effects. See, e.g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). The proof at Robertson's trial, however, focused largely on the interstate activities of Robertson's mine. For example, the Government proved that Robertson purchased at least $100,000 worth of equipment and supplies for use in the mine. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' suggestion, all of those items were not purchased locally (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Kirk
...Court's chosen citations, to describe the impact of federal legislation upon interstate commerce. See United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669, 115 S.Ct. 1732, 131 L.Ed.2d 714 (1995). Before going further, we note that although Lopez does not explicitly abandon the deferential rational basi......
-
U.S. v. Dinwiddie
...Maintenance Industries, 422 U.S. 271, 283, 95 S.Ct. 2150, 2158, 45 L.Ed.2d 177 (1975). See United States v. Robertson, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1732, 131 L.Ed.2d 714 (1995) (per curiam) (an Alaskan gold mine that hired seven out-of-state employees and purchased equipment from an out-of-stat......
-
U.S. v. Lankford
...domestic violence "substantially affects" interstate commerce, as required under Lopez's third prong.4 See United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669, 671 (1995) (per curiam). Because 2261(a)(1) is within Congress'Commerce Clause power, there is no error in convicting Lankford of violating th......
-
U.S. v. Hickman
...v. United States, 222 U.S. 20, 32 S.Ct. 2, 56 L.Ed. 72 (1911)). The United States maintains that United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669, 115 S.Ct. 1732, 131 L.Ed.2d 714 (1995) (per curiam), decided just days after Lopez, supports its analysis. Robertson involved the illegal investment of ......
-
Table of Cases
...1531 Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984), 1407, 1525-27 Robertson, United States v., 514 U.S. 669, 115 S.Ct. 1732, 131 L.Ed.2d 714 (1995), 730 Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715 (1897), 1066 Robins v. Pruneyard, 2......
-
Foreword: statutory interpretation and the federalization of criminal law.
...382 (1994) (21 U.S.C. [sections] 846 (drug conspiracy)). Another opinion involving a federal prosecution was United States v. Robertson, 115 S. Ct. 1732 (1995) (per curiam), in which the Court overturned a lower court decision finding that the government had not proven the required intersta......
-
What can RICO not do? RICO and the non-economic intrastate enterprise that perpetrates only non-economic racketeering activity.
...(7th Cir. 1991). (157) See, e.g., United States v. Espinoza, 52 F. App'x 846, 847 (7th Cir. 2002). (158) See United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669, 671-72 (1995) (finding the defendant's gold mine, the alleged RICO enterprise, sufficiently engaged in interstate commerce because it employ......
-
Casebooks and Constitutional Competency
...dissent, upheld a RICO conviction for investing the proceeds of certain crimes in the operations of a mine. United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669 (1995). In several respects the mine operations either were in, or affected, interstate commerce. However, apparently no one thought to ask wh......