AND · 18usc1962:commerce
A de minimis effect on interstate commerce by the enterprise's activities (including detrimental effects on victims engaged in commerce) suffices.
Exact element source
engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1647:1724] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [515:601] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1473:1559] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 3 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (3). Excluded context examples:Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler — 510 U.S. 249 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (b),(c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) Pleaded only by reciting the statute; not discussed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler — 510 U.S. 249 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) "Affect" commerce includes harming the commerce of others (the clinics); the commerce clause of (c) does not smuggle in an economic-motive requirement. Whether the commerce nexus is actually met was not separately decided. | affects-commerce/detrimental-effect-without-profit-motive | Petitioners alleged that respondents conspired to use threatened or actual force, violence, or fear to induce clinic employees, doctors, and patients to give up their jobs, give up their economic right to practice medicine, and give up their right to obtain medical services at the clinics.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [2871:3161] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [9808:9942] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.
National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler — 510 U.S. 249 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [9808:9942] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.A de minimis effect on interstate commerce by the enterprise's activities (including detrimental effects on victims engaged in commerce) suffices.
interpretation
To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .
United States v. Mathis — 932 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
To obtain a conviction under this statute, the government was required to prove "that an enterprise affecting interstate commerce existed; that each defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with another person to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise; and .Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [28535:28814] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.A de minimis effect on interstate commerce by the enterprise's activities (including detrimental effects on victims engaged in commerce) suffices.