P. 1
Addendum 2 - More Cases on Obama DOJ's Expansive View of Federal Power

Addendum 2 - More Cases on Obama DOJ's Expansive View of Federal Power

|Views: 899|Likes:
Published by Senator Ted Cruz
From January 2012 to April 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration Department of Justice’s arguments for more federal power six times. The Court then added two more such unanimous losses in May and June 2013.

View the original report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/134743219/The-Legal-Limit-The-Obama-Administration-s-Attempts-to-Expand-Federal-Power
From January 2012 to April 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration Department of Justice’s arguments for more federal power six times. The Court then added two more such unanimous losses in May and June 2013.

View the original report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/134743219/The-Legal-Limit-The-Obama-Administration-s-Attempts-to-Expand-Federal-Power

More info:

Published by: Senator Ted Cruz on Jul 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/21/2013

pdf

text

original

U.S.

Supreme Court Rejects Obama Administration DOJ’s Expansive View of Federal Power *Addendum 2* From January 2012 to June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration Department of Justice’s arguments for more federal power nine times. The most recent unanimous loss came on the last day of the Term. Sekhar v. United States, No. 12-357 (June 26, 2013): OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO DRASTICALLY EXPAND FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW In Sekhar v. United States, the Administration argued that the federal crime of extortion should be expanded far beyond the centuries-old meaning of extortion. Sekhar, a partner in an investment firm, anonymously threatened the general counsel of the New York State Comptroller’s office. Sekhar told the general counsel that if he did not recommend that the state retirement fund invest with Sekhar’s firm, then Sekhar would disclose an alleged affair involving the general counsel to his wife, government officials, and the media. The government argued that Sekhar committed extortion, under the federal Hobbs Act. According to the government, it did not have to prove that Sekhar was trying to obtain actual tangible property. Instead, the government believed it only had to show that Sekhar was trying to obtain the general counsel’s “intangible property right to give his disinterested legal opinion to his client free of improper outside interference.” The Court unanimously rejected the Administration’s argument, recognizing that the crime of extortion—both at common law and in the federal statute—has required obtaining actual property. The Court called the government’s argument “absurd,” noting that Congress had criminalized extortion and not mere coercion. In doing so, the Court upheld obvious congressional limits on federal criminal law, instead of accepting the government’s unprecedented argument for an extreme expansion of the well-settled meaning of extortion.

1

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->