Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Robertson

514 U.S. 669

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1995-05-01
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that an enterprise that produces, distributes, or acquires goods or services in interstate commerce is engaged in interstate commerce
  • holding that a jurisdictional element of RICO was satisfied by evidence showing that the defendant had invested the proceeds of illegal activity in an enterprise that was engaged in interstate commerce
  • holding that "substantially affects" test applied in Lopez was developed "to define the extent of Congress' power over purely intrastate commercial activities which nonetheless have substantial interstate effects"
  • noting that "effects" test has no role outside of cases involving intrastate activities that are regulated because of their substantial effects upon interstate commerce
  • explaining that the category three “substantially affects” test need only be applied to intrastate commercial activity that has interstate effects
  • explaining that the "substantial effects" test defines the extent of Congress's power to regulate intrastate activity and does not apply when the regulated activity itself crosses state lines
  • noting that most of the parties' arguments were addressed to the question whether the activities of the gold mine "affected” interstate commerce but concluding that "we do not have to consider that point"
  • leaving open question whether RICO enterprise’s activities must “substantially affect” interstate commerce where enterprise was engaged in commerce

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Robertson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
133 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON,514 U.S. 669(1995)
115 S.Ct. 1732
UNITED STATESv. ROBERTSON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT
No. 94-251
May 1, 1995
Respondent Robertson's investment in his Alaska gold mine of the proceeds from his unlawful narcotics activities prompted a federal indictment for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which makes it a crime for any person to use or invest any income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity 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 . . . commerce,"18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). Robertson was convicted on this charge, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the gold mine (the RICO "enterprise") was "engaged in or affect[ed] interstate commerce."

Held: Robertson's gold mine comes within § 1962(a)'s jurisdictional reach. At trial, the Government proved,inter alia, that Robertson purchased equipment and supplies in California and transported them to Alaska for use in the mine, brought workers from outside Alaska to work in the mine, and transported 15% of the mine's output out of Alaska. These activities assuredly brought the mine within § 1962(a)'s criterion of "an enterprise . . . engaged in . . . interstate . . . commerce." See, e.g.,United States v.American Building Maintenance Industries,422 U.S. 271,283. Because the proof thus focused on interstate activities rather than intrastate activities having interstate effects, this Court need not decide whether the activities substantially affected interstate commerce under,e.g., Wickard v. Filburn,317 U.S. 111,127-128.15 F.3d 862, reversed.
Miguel A. Estradaargued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs wereSolicitor General Days, AssistantAttorney General Harris, andMichael R. Dreeben, Acting Deputy Solicitor General.Glenn Stewart Warren, by appointment of the Court,513 U.S. 985, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.fn*Page 670
PER CURIAM.
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. § 1961et 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." § 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. 945(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 gold-mining 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, althoughPage 671Robertson 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 purelyintrastate commercial activities that nonetheless have substantialinterstate effects. See,e.g.,Wickardv.Filburn,317 U.S. 111(1942). The proof at Robertson's trial, however, focused largely on theinterstate 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 ("drawn generally from the stream of interstate commerce,"15 F.3d, at 869(internal quotation marks omitted)); the Government proved that some of them were purchased in California and transported to Alaska for use in the mine's operations. Cf.United Statesv.American Building Maintenance Industries,422 U.S. 271,285(1975) (allegation that company had madelocalpurchases of equipment and supplies that were merelymanufacturedout of state was insufficient to show that company was "engaged in commerce" within the meaning of § 7 of the Clayton Act). The Government also proved that, on more than one occasion, Robertson sought workers from out of state and brought them to Alaska to work in the mine. Cf.id., at 274. Furthermore, Robertson, the mine's sole proprietor, took $30,000 worth of gold, or 15% of the mine's total output, with him out of the State.

Whether or not these activities met (and whether or not, to bring the gold mine within the "affecting commerce" provision of RICO, they wouldhaveto meet) the requirement of substantially affecting interstate commerce, they assuredlyPage 672brought the gold mine within § 1962(a)'s alternative criterion of "any enterprise . . . engaged in . . . interstate or foreign commerce." As we said inAmerican Building Maintenance, a corporation is generally "engaged `in commerce'" when it is itself "directly engaged in the production, distribution, or acquisition of goods or services in interstate commerce."Id., at 283. See alsoGulf OilCorp. v.Copp Paving Co.,419 U.S. 186,195(1974).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals isReversed.Page 673
  1. Page 669Jon MayandEphraim Margolinfiled a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging affirmance. ↩