The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 Monday in Ocasio v. United States [SCOTUSblog materials] that a defendant may be convicted of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act [text] based on proof that he reached an agreement with the owner of the property in question to obtain that property under color of official right. The case raised the issue of whether the petitioner could have been convicted under the Hobbes Act upon evidence that he had received money from members within a conspiracy, not from those outside a conspiracy. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court reasoned that it is sufficient to satisfy the elements of the Hobbes Act if the conspirator agreed that the underlying crime be committed by a member of the conspiracy capable of committing it even if the actions were not completed by the officer. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a separate dissent, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore Police Officer, entered into a deal with Majestic Auto Repair Shop in 2009 under which he would encourage those involved in an automobile accident to send their damaged vehicles to Majestic. Ocasio would receive monetary compensation for his recommendation, and Majestic’s client-base increased to the point where 90 percent of their business stemmed from this agreement. The court granted certiorari in the case in March of last year and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in October.