133 S. Ct. 2720 (2013)
New York’s Common Retirement Fund is an employee pension fund for the State of New York and its local governments. As sole trustee of the Fund, the State Comptroller chooses Fund investments. When the Comptroller decides to approve an investment he issues a “Commitment,” though a Commitment does not actually bind the Fund until the Fund and the recipient enter into a limited partnership agreement.1
In October 2009, the Comptroller’s office was considering whether to invest in a fund managed by FA Technology Ventures. After learning that the Office of the New York Attorney General was investigating another fund managed by the firm, the office’s general counsel made a written recommendation to the Comptroller not to invest. The Comptroller decided not to issue a Commitment and notified a partner of FA Technology Ventures.2
The general counsel then received a series of anonymous e-mails demanding that he recommend moving forward with the investment and threatening, if he did not, to disclose information about his alleged affair to his wife, government officials, and the media. Law enforcement traced some of the e-mails to petitioner Giridhar Sekhar’s home computer and other e-mails to offices of FA Technology Ventures, where Sekhar was a managing partner.3
Sekhar was indicted for, and a jury convicted him of, attempted extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act.4 On the verdict form the jury specified that the property Sekhar attempted to extort was the general counsel’s recommendation to approve the Commitment.5 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction.6 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.7
Whether attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment constitutes "the obtaining of property from another" under 18 U.S.C. §1951(b)(2)?8
Absent other indication, Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses.9 The Hobbs Act defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.10 Obtaining property requires not only the deprivation but also the acquisition of property.11 The property extorted must therefore be transferable.12
No. The jury specified on the verdict form that the property Sekhar attempted to extort was the general counsel's recommendation to approve the Commitment. That recommendation cannot pass from one person to another and therefore lacks the transferability required for extortion under the Hobbs Act.13
The established facts show that the general counsel recommended against the investment in the FA Technology Ventures fund. Anonymous emails traced to Sekhar demanded that the general counsel change his recommendation under threat of disclosing an alleged affair. Sekhar was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act extortion on that basis alone.14 The Second Circuit affirmed by treating the right to make the recommendation as obtainable property.15
Because the charged conduct involved only coercion to act rather than acquisition of transferable property, it falls outside the Hobbs Act definition of extortion that Congress enacted in 1946.16
Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute the obtaining of property from another under the Hobbs Act.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Kennedy And Sotomayor
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment on the distinct ground that an internal government recommendation is not property at all.18 He explained that it is not customary to refer to an internal recommendation regarding a government decision as a form of property.19 It would be strange to say that a private party could obtain a property interest in such a recommendation.20
Alito further noted that the recommendation was tied to the general counsel's government position and could not be taken or sold if the employee left state employment.21