Sekhar v. United States

Background

A State pension fund’s sole trustee, the State Comptroller, decides investments. The fund’s general counsel recommended against investing in a fund managed by FA Technology Ventures. After that recommendation, the counsel received anonymous emails threatening to reveal an alleged affair unless he changed his recommendation. Some emails were traced to the home computer of Giridhar Sekhar, a managing partner at the investment firm. A jury convicted Sekhar of attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act, finding the targeted “property” was the general counsel’s recommendation.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether forcing a person to give a recommendation counts as “obtaining property.” It relied on the common-law meaning of extortion and the Hobbs Act’s text to say extortion requires acquiring transferable property—something the extortionist can exercise or transfer. An internal recommendation cannot be transferred like money or a license. The Court also noted Congress omitted coercion from the Hobbs Act’s definition and cited prior decisions (including Scheidler and Cleveland) to reject the government’s argument that an intangible right to give advice is obtainable property. The Court reversed Sekhar’s conviction.

Real world impact

The decision narrows the Hobbs Act’s reach. Prosecutors may not be able to use the Hobbs Act to convert threats that force officials or employees to make particular recommendations into federal extortion charges. Cases that involve coercion of speech or advice may need different legal theories or rely on other laws rather than Hobbs Act extortion.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence by Justice Alito, joined by Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor, agreed the conviction should be overturned. He emphasized that the recommendation itself is not property and invoked Cleveland and the rule of lenity as support.