source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Souter

license: Public Domain

text:
    WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES et al. v. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER et al.
    No. 01-1420.
    Argued December 3, 2002
    Decided February 25, 2003

      SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were William Berggren Collins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Walter Dellinger, and Pamela Harris.

      Patricia A. Millett argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCollum, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, William Ranter, and Jonathan H. Levy.

      Teresa Wynn Roseborough argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Deborah M. Danzig, Richard B. Price, and Rodney M. Reinbold.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Florida et al. by Robert A Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Thomas E. Warner, Solicitor General, and Matthew J. Conigliaro, Deputy Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Fiti A Sunia of American Samoa, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Lockyer of California, Ken Salazar of Colorado, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Earl I. Anzai of Hawaii, James E. Ryan of Illinois, Steve Carter of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, G. Steven Rowe of Maine, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie Site Del Papa of Nevada, Philip T. McLaughlin of New Hampshire, David Samson of New Jersey, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Anabelle Rodriguez of Puerto Rico, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Charles M. Condon of South Carolina, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, Paul G. Summers of Tennessee, John Comyn of Texas, Mark L. Shwrtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Jerry W. Kilgore of Virginia, Iver A Stridiron of the Virgin Islands, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia, James E. Doyle of Wisconsin, and Hoke MacMillan of Wyoming; for the Counties of the State of California et al. by Lloyd W Pellman, Ada Gardiner, Catherine J. Pratt, Alan K. Marks, and Julie J. Surber;
        and for the Children’s Defense Fund et al. by Michael L. Martinez and David L. Haga.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for AARP by Rochelle Bobroff and Michael Schuster; and for Omar M. Azzam et al. by Douglas IT Grinnell, Donnie R. Cox, Dennis B. Atchley, and Paul W. Leehey.

        Marsha L. Levick filed a brief for the Juvenile Law Center et al. as amici curiae.

   Justice Souter

delivered the opinion of the Court.

At its own expense, the State of Washington provides foster care to certain children removed from their parents’ custody, and it also receives and manages Social Security benefits for many of the children involved, as permitted under the Social Security Act and regulations. The question here is whether the State’s use of Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for some of its initial expenditures violates a provision of the Social Security Act protecting benefits from “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” 42 U. S. C. § 407(a); see § 1383(d)(1). We hold that it does not.

I

A

The federal money in question comes under one or the other of two titles of the Social Security Act. Title II, 49 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., is the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) plan of benefits for elderly and disabled workers, and their survivors and dependents. A child may get OASDI payments if, say, the minor is unmarried and was dependent on a wage earner entitled to OASDI benefits. § 402(d). Title XVI of the Act, §1381 et seq., is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) scheme of benefits for aged, blind, or disabled individuals, including children, whose income and assets fall below specified levels (the level for the latter currently being $2,000). §§1381-1382; 20 CFR § 416.1205(c) (2002).

Although the Social Security Administration generally pays OASDI and SSI benefits directly, it may distribute them “for [a beneficiary’s] use and benefit” to another individual or entity as the beneficiary’s “ ‘representative payee.’ ” 42 U.S.C. §§4G5(j)(1)(A), 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I); see 20 CFR §§404.2001, 404.2010, 416.601, 416.610. In the exercise of its rulemaking authority, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(a), (j)(2)(A)(ii), the Administration has given priority to a child’s parent, legal guardian, or relative when considering such an appointment. 20 CFR §§ 404.2021(b), 416.621(b). While the Act and regulations allow social service agencies and custodial institutions to serve in this capacity, such entities come last in order of preference. §§ 404.2021(b)(7), 416.621(b)(7); see also 42 U.S.C. §§405(j)(3)(F), 1383(a)(2)(D)(ii). Whoever the appointee may be, the Commissioner of Social Security must be satisfied that the particular appointment is “in the interest of” the beneficiary. §§405(j)(2)(A)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(i)(II).

Detailed regulations govern a representative payee’s use of benefits. Generally, a payee must expend funds “only for the use and benefit of the beneficiary,” in a way the payee determines “to be in the [beneficiary’s] best interests.” 20 CFR §§ 404.2035(a), 416.635(a). The regulations get more specific in providing that payments made for “current maintenance” are deemed to be “for the use and benefit of the beneficiary,” defining “current maintenance” to include “cost[s] incurred in obtaining food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and personal comfort items.” §§ 404.2040(a), 416.640(a). Although a representative payee “may not be required to use benefit payments to satisfy a debt of the beneficiary” that arose before the period the benefit payments are certified to cover, a payee may discharge such a debt “if the current and reasonably foreseeable needs of the beneficiary are met” and it is in the beneficiary’s interest to do so. §§ 404.2040(d), 416.640(d). Finally, if there are any funds left over after a representative payee has used benefits for current maintenance and other authorized purposes, the payee is required to conserve or invest the funds and to hold them in trust for the beneficiary. §§404.2046, 416.645.

The Act requires a representative payee to provide the Commissioner with an accounting at least annually, 42 U. S. C. §§405(j)(3)(A), 1383(a)(2)(C)(i), and some institutional representative payees are liable to triennial onsite reviews by the Commissioner’s staff, see Social Security Admin., Increased Monitoring of Fee-for-Service and Volume Representative Payees, Policy Instruction EM-00072 (June 1,2000). In any case, the Commissioner may order a report any time she “has reason to believe” that a payee is misusing a beneficiary’s funds, §§405(j)(3)(D), 1383(a)(2)(C)(iv), a criminal offense that calls for revocation of the payee’s appointment, §§405(j)(1)(A), 408(a)(5), 1383(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1383a(a)(4); see 20 CFR §§404.2050, 416.650.

B

The State of Washington, through petitioner Department of Social and Health Services, makes foster care available to abandoned, abused, neglected, or orphaned children who have no guardians or other custodians able to care for them adequately. See Wash. Rev. Code §§13.34.030(5), 13.34.130(1)(b) (2002). Although the department provides foster care without strings attached to any child who needs it, the State's policy is “to attempt to recover the costs of foster care from the parents of [the] children,” 145 Wash. 2d 1, 6, 32 P. 3d 267, 269 (2001) (citing Wash. Rev. Code § 74.20A.010 (2001)), and to use “moneys and other funds” of the foster child to offset “the amount of public assistance otherwise payable,” §74.13.060. The department accordingly adopted a regulation providing that public benefits for a child, including benefits under SSI or OASDI, “shall be used on behalf of the child to help pay for the cost of the foster care received.” Wash. Admin. Code §388-70-069(1) (2001), repealed by Wash. St. Reg. 01-08-047 (Mar. 30, 2001).

When the department receives Social Security benefits as representative payee for children in its care, it generally credits them to a special Foster Care Trust Fund Account kept by the state treasurer, which includes subsidiary accounts for each child beneficiary. When these accounts are debited, it is only rarely for a direct purchase by the State of a foster child’s food, clothing, and shelter. The usual purchaser is a foster care provider, who is then paid back by the department according to a fixed compensation schedule. Every month, the department compares its payments to the provider of a child’s care with the child’s subsidiary account balance, on which the department then draws to reimburse itself. Since the State’s outlay customarily exceeds a child’s monthly Social Security benefits, the reimbursement to the State usually leaves the account empty until the next federal benefit cheek arrives.

The department occasionally departs from this practice, in the exercise of its discretion, to use the Social Security funds “for extra items or special needs” ranging from orthodontics, educational expenses, and computers, through athletic equipment and holiday presents. 145 Wash. 2d, at 12, 32 P. 3d, at 272. And there have also been exceptional instances in which the department has forgone reimbursement for foster care to conserve a child’s resources for expenses anticipated on impending emancipation. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A-57; App. 178.

C

As of September 1999, there were 10,578 foster children in the department’s care, some 1,500 of them receiving OASDI or SSI benefits. The Commissioner had appointed the department to serve as representative payee for almost all of the latter children, who are among respondents in this action brought on behalf of foster care children in the State of Washington who receive or have received OASDI or SSI benefits and for whom the department serves or has served as representative payee. In their 1995 class action filed in state court, they alleged, among other things, that the department’s use of their Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for the costs of foster care violated 42 U. S. C. §§ 407(a) and 1383(d)(1). Section 407(a), commonly called the Act’s “antiattachment” provision, provides that

“[t]he right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.”

Section 1383(d)(1) incorporates this provision by reference and applies it to Title XVI of the Act.

Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with respondents. It enjoined the department from continuing to charge its costs of foster care against Social Security benefits, ordered restitution of previous reimbursement transfers, and awarded attorney’s fees to respondents. The department appealed to the State Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court of Washington.

After remanding for further factfinding, the State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s holding that the department’s practices violated the antiattachment provisions. Relying in part on Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U. S. 413 (1973), and Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U. S. 395 (1988) (per curiam), the state court reasoned that § 407(a) was intended to protect Social Security benefits from the claims of creditors, and consequently framed “the crucial question” as “[w]hether [the department] acts as a creditor when it reimburses itself for foster care costs out of the foster children’s [benefits].” 145 Wash. 2d, at 17, 32 P. 3d, at 275 (emphasis in original). Its answer was a slightly qualified yes, that the department’s “reimbursement scheme . . . involve[s] creditor-type acts,” performed by resort to the “ ‘other legal process’ ” barred by § 407(a). Id., at 18, 22, 25, 32 P. 3d, at 257, 277-278.

The state court’s analysis not only gave no deference to the Commissioner’s regulations, but omitted any mention of the law governing rulemaking and interpretation by an administrative agency. Nor did the state court think it significant that it was the Commissioner of Social Security who had appointed the department to serve as representative payee for respondents’ Social Security benefits. See id., at 25, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (calling the department’s representative payee status “at best immaterial to the analysis”). To the contrary, the court ultimately reasoned that the department’s capacity as representative payee “further undercuts the legality of its reimbursement process” because a representative payee is charged with acting “ ‘in the best interests of the beneficiary.’” Id., at 24, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (emphasis in original) (quoting 20 CFR § 404.2035(a)). “We seriously doubt using [Social Security] benefits to reimburse the state for its public assistance expenditure is in all cases, or even some, ‘in the best interests of the beneficiary.’ ” 145 Wash. 2d, at 24, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (quoting § 404.2035(a)).

Three justices concurred in part and dissented in part. They agreed with the majority that the department’s use of Social Security benefits for “past due foster care payments” violated the antiattachment provisions of the Act. Id., at 27, 32 P. 3d, at 279 (opinion of Bridge, J.) (emphasis in original). But they would have held that the department is entitled to use benefits to pay for “current maintenance costs, provided that any special needs of the children are satisfied first.” Ibid, (emphasis in original).

After staying the State Supreme Court’s mandate, 535 U. S. 923 (2002), we granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1094 (2002), and now reverse.

II

A

Section 407(a) protects SSI and OASDI benefits from “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” The Supreme Court of Washington approached respondents’ claim by generalizing from this text and concluding that § 407(a) prohibits “creditor-type acts,” on which reading it held that the department’s reimbursement scheme was prohibited. The analysis was flawed.

First, neither § 407(a) nor the Commissioner’s regulations interpreting that provision say anything about “creditors.” Cf. Philpott, supra, at 417 (“[Section] 407 does not refer to any ‘claim of creditors’; it imposes a broad bar against the use of any legal process to reach all social security benefits”). In fact, the Act and regulations to which we owe deference, see Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984), not only permit certain creditors to serve as representative payees, 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(C)(iii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(v), but allow a representative payee to satisfy even old debts of a beneficiary so long as current and reasonably foreseeable needs will be met and reimbursement is in the beneficiary’s interest, 20 CFR §§ 404.2040(d), 416.640(d). Finally, as the Supreme Court of Washington apparently recognized (in qualifying its characterization of “creditor relationship” by referring to the department’s acts as merely “creditor-type”), the department is simply not a creditor of the foster care children for whom it serves as representative payee. No law provides that they are liable to repay the department for the costs of their care, and the State of Washington makes no such claim.

The questions to be answered in resolving this case, then, do not go to the State’s character as a creditor. The questions, instead, are whether the department’s effort to become a representative payee, or its use of respondents’ Social Security benefits when it acts in that capacity, amounts to employing an “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process” within the meaning of § 407(a). For obvious reasons, respondents do not contend that the department’s activities involve any execution, levy, attachment, or garnishment. These legal terms of art refer to formal procedures by which one person gains a degree of control over property otherwise subject to the control of another, and generally involve some form of judicial authorization. See, e. g., Black’s Law Dictionary 123 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “provisional attachment” as a “prejudgment attachment in which the debtor’s property is seized so that if the creditor ultimately prevails, the creditor will be assured of recovering on the judgment.... Ordinarily, a hearing must be held before the attachment takes place”); id., at 689 (defining “garnishment” as “[a] judicial proceeding in which a creditor (or potential creditor) asks the court to order a third party who is indebted to or is bailee for the debtor to turn over to the creditor any of the debtor’s property”). The department’s efforts to become a representative payee and to use respondents’ benefits do not even arguably employ any of these traditional procedures.

Thus, the case boils down to whether the department’s manner of gaining control of the federal funds involves “other legal process,” as the statute uses that term. That restriction to the statutory usage of “other legal process” is important here, for in the abstract the department does use legal process as the avenue to reimbursement: by a federal legal process the Commissioner appoints the department a representative payee, and by a state legal process the department makes claims against the accounts kept by the state treasurer. The statute, however, uses the term “other legal process” far more restrictively, for under the established interpretative canons of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, “ ‘[w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.’” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 114-115 (2001); see Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U. S. 250, 255 (2000) (“[W]ords ... are known by their companions”); Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961) (“The maxim noscitur a sociis . . . is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress”)- Thus, “other legal process” should be understood to be process much like the processes of execution, levy, attachment, and garnishment, and at a minimum, would seem to require utilization of some judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism, though not necessarily an elaborate one, by which control over property passes from one person to another in order to discharge or secure discharge of an allegedly existing or anticipated liability.

In this case, the product of these canons of construction is confirmed by legal guidance in the Commissioner’s own interpretation of “legal process.” The Social Security Administration’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS), the publicly available operating instructions for processing Social Security claims, defines “legal process” as used in § 407(a) as “the means by which a court (or agency or official authorized by law) compels compliance with its demand; generally, it is a court order.” POMS GN 02410.001 (2002), available at http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/aboutpoms (as visited Jan. 23, 2003) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Elsewhere in the POMS, the Commissioner defines “legal process” similarly as “any writ, order, summons or other similar process in the nature of garnishment. It may include, but is not limited to, an attachment, writ of execution, income execution order or wage assignment that is issued by ... [a] court of competent jurisdiction ... [or a]n authorized official pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or pursuant to State or local law . . . [a]nd is directed to a governmental entity.” POMS GN 02410.200 (emphasis added). While these administrative interpretations are not products of formal rulemaking, they nevertheless warrant respect in closing the door on any suggestion that the usual rules of statutory construction should get short shrift for the sake of reading “other legal process” in abstract breadth. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-140 (1944); see also United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 228, 234-235 (2001).

On this restrictive understanding of “other legal process,” it is apparent that the department’s efforts to become respondents’ representative payee and its use of respondents’ benefits in that capacity involve nothing of the sort. Whereas the object of the processes specifically named is to discharge, or secure discharge of, some enforceable obligation, the State has no enforceable claim against its foster children. And although execution, levy, attachment, and garnishment typically involve the exercise of some sort of judicial or-quasi-judicial authority to gain control over another’s property, the department’s reimbursement scheme operates on funds already in the department’s possession and control, held on terms that allow the reimbursement.

The regulations previously quoted specify that payments made for a beneficiary’s “current maintenance” are deemed to be “for the use and benefit of the beneficiary,” and define “current maintenance” to include “cost[s] incurred in obtaining food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and personal comfort items.” 20 CFR §§ 404.2040(a), 416.640(a). There is no question that the state funds to be reimbursed were spent for items of “current maintenance,” and although the State typically makes the accounting reimbursement two months after spending its own funds, this practice is consistent with the regulation’s definition of “current maintenance” as “costs incurred” for food and the like. That the State is dealing with the funds consistently with Social Security regulations is confirmed by the Commissioner’s own interpretation of those regulations as allowing reimbursement by a representative payee for maintenance costs, at least for costs incurred after the first benefit payment is made to the payee. Cf. POMS GN 00602.030 (defining a “past debt,” which may be satisfied only if a beneficiary’s current and reasonably foreseeable needs are met, as “a debt the beneficiary incurred before the date of the first benefit payment is made to the current payee”).

The Government has gone even further to support this as a reasonable interpretation, text aside, owing to significant advantages of the reimbursement method in providing accurate documentation and allowing for easy monitoring of representative payees in administering Social Security. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28-29. In fact, it would be hard not to see this type of slightly delayed reimbursement as the only way OASDI funds could be spent on a foster child’s current maintenance, since the Administration disburses those Social Security benefits with a time lag. See POMS GN 02401.001 (noting that OASDI benefits are dispensed within the month after they are due). In short, the Commissioner’s interpretation of her own regulations is eminently sensible and should have been given deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997).

The Supreme Court of Washington rested its contrary conclusion, in part, on our decisions in Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U. S. 413 (1973), and Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U. S. 395 (1988) (per curiam). But both Philpott and Bennett involved judicial actions in which a State sought to attach a beneficiary’s Social Security benefits as reimbursement for the costs of the beneficiary’s care and maintenance. See Philpott, supra, at 415 (“Respondent sued to reach the bank account”); Bennett, supra, at 396 (“The State filed separate actions in state court seeking to attach Social Security benefits”). In each case, we held that the plain language of § 407(a) barred the State’s legal action, and refused to find an implied exception to the antiattachment provision for a State simply because it provides for the care and maintenance of a beneficiary. See Philpott, supra, at 416; Bennett, supra, at 397. Unlike the present case, then, both Philpott and Bennett involved forms of legal process expressly prohibited by § 407(a). In neither case was the State acting as a representative payee in seeking to use the funds as reimbursement for the costs incurred in providing for the beneficiary’s care and maintenance.

B

The poor fit between § 407(a) and respondents’ argument points to the real basis of their objections to the reimbursement practice. At bottom, respondents’ position and the State Supreme Court’s holding reflect a view that allowing a state agency to reimburse itself for the costs of foster care is antithetical to the best interest of the beneficiary foster child. See 145 Wash. 2d, at 17, 32 P. 3d, at 275 (contending that a foster child “is better off with any payee other than the [department] because [the department] must provide foster care under state law regardless of whether it receives a reimbursement” (emphasis in original)); id., at 24, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (“We seriously doubt using [Social Security] benefits to reimburse the state for its public assistance expenditure is in all cases, or even some, ‘in the best interests of the beneficiary’ ” (quoting 20 CFR § 404.2035(a))).

Although it is true that the State could not directly compel the beneficiary or any other representative payee to pay Social Security benefits over to the State, that fact does not render the appointment of a self-reimbursing representative payee at odds with the Commissioner’s mandate to find that a beneficiary’s “interest... would be served” by the appointment. 42 U. S. C. §§405(j)(1)(A), 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(X). Respondents’ premise that promoting the “best interests” of a beneficiary requires maximizing resources from left-over benefit income ignores the settled principle of administrative law that an open-ended and potentially vague term is highly susceptible to administrative interpretation subject to judicial deference. See Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843. Under her statutory authority, the Commissioner has read the “interest” of the beneficiary in light of the basic objectives of the Act: to provide a “minimum level of income” to children who would not “have sufficient income and resources to maintain a standard of living at the established Federal minimum income level,” 20 CFR §416.110 (SSI); see also Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U. S. 521, 524 (1990), and to provide workers and their families the “income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses,” § 404.508(a) (OASDI); see also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 50 (1977). The Commissioner, that is, has decided that a representative payee serves the beneficiary’s interest by seeing that basic needs are met, not by maximizing a trust fund attributable to fortuitously overlapping state and federal grants.

This judgment is not only obviously within the bounds of the reasonable, but one confirmed by the demonstrably antithetical character of respondents’ position to the best interest of many foster care children. SSI beneficiaries would be most obviously subject to threat, since eligibility for benefits of these child recipients is lost if their assets creep above a certain minimal level, currently $2,000. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1382(a)(1)(B), (3)(B); 20 CFR § 416.1205(c). Many foster children would lose SSI benefits altogether if respondents prevailed. See Brief for Children’s Defense Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 20; Brief for Counties of the State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 16-18. But foster children beneficiaries under both SSI and OASDI would suffer from a broader disadvantage. Respondents’ argument forgets the fact that public institutions like the department are last in the line of eligibility for appointment as representative payees; the Commissioner appoints them only when no one else will do. See 20 CFR §§ 404.2021(b), 416.621(b). If respondents had their way, however, public offices like the department might well not be there to serve as payees even as the last resort, for there is reason to believe that if state agencies could not use Social Security benefits to reimburse the State in funding current costs of foster care, many States would be discouraged from accepting appointment as representative payees by the administrative costs of acting in that capacity. See Brief for Children’s Defense Fund, supra, at 21; Brief for State of Florida et al. as Amici Curiae 7. And without such agencies to identify children eligible for federal benefits and to help them qualify, see Brief for Children’s Defense Fund, supra, at 20-24; Brief for State of Florida, supra, at 3-5; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17, many eligible children would either obtain no Social Security benefits or need some very good luck to get them. With a smaller total pool of money for their potential use, the chances of having funds for genuine needs beyond immediate support would obviously shrink, to the children’s loss. Respondents’ position, in sum, would tend to produce worse representative payees in these cases, with less money to spend.

III

The department’s reimbursement from respondents’ Social Security benefits does not violate § 407(a). The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       Prior to making an appointment, the Commissioner must verify the potential representative payee’s identity, connection to the beneficiary, and lack of relevant criminal record or prior misuse of Social Security funds. §§405(j)(2)(B), 1383(a)(2)(B)(ii); see 20 CFR §§404.2025, 416.625. The Commissioner must also attempt to identify any other potential representative payee whose appointment may be preferred. 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(A)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(i)(II); see 20 CFR §§404.2020, 416.620.
      In addition, the Commissioner is required to notify the beneficiary or the beneficiary's legal guardian of her intention to appoint a representative payee. 42 U.S.C. §§405(j)(2)(E)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(xii); see 20 CFR §§404.2030,416.630. “Any individual who is dissatisfied ... with the designation of a particular person to serve as representative payee shall be entitled to a hearing by the Commissioner,” with judicial review available thereafter. 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(E)(i), 1383(a)(2)(B)(xi).

       In April 2001, the department repealed §388-70-069 and replaced it with a functionally similar provision. The new regulation provides that the department “must use income not exempted to cover the child’s cost of care.” Wash. Admin. Code § [ XXX-XX-XXXX ].

       Of the 1,480 children in foster care as of September 1999 who were receiving Social Security benefits, 923 were receiving SSI benefits, 469 were receiving OASDI benefits, and 88 were receiving both, and the department acted as representative payee for 1,411.

         In light of this holding, the State Supreme Court did not address respondents’ other arguments, including the contention, accepted in the alternative by the trial court, that the department violated procedural due process by failing to provide notice of the ‘“intended result’” of its appointment as representative payee. 145 Wash. 2d 1, 15, 32 P. 3d 267, 274 (2001) (quoting Memorandum Opinion, No. 96-2-00157-2 (Wash. Super. Ct., Okanogan Cty., Sept. 29, 1998), p. 8, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-130).

       The State Supreme Court ultimately remanded for further consideration of the scope and basis for awarding attorney’s fees. Our jurisdiction, which is premised on a “[f]inal judgmen[t] or decre[e]” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a), is unaffected by this disposition. See Pierce County v. Guillen, ante, at 142-143.

       Respondents have apparently never argued that the reimbursement violates the § 407(a) bar to “transfe[r]” of benefits; nor would such a claim seem to hold any promise on the facts here. Respondents do, however, contend that the department’s budgeting in anticipation of receiving Social Security benefits constitutes an “assign[ment]” prohibited by § 407(a). Congress could hardly have intended for this sort of budgeting, done by private and public representative payees alike, to run afoul of the antiat-tachment provisions of the Act, particularly since the Administration makes OASDI payments with a 1-month lag. See infra, at 387. To the extent that the text of § 407(a) is ambiguous on this score, the Commissioner’s interpretation of the provision to permit such budgeting requires deference. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-140 (1944).

       Quite apart from any consequence of the interpretive canons discussed in the succeeding text, the mere fact of the department’s appointment as representative payee could not reasonably be taken to contravene the antiattachment provision, contrary to respondents’ suggestion. As already noted, the department’s appointment is consistent with the sections of the Act governing appointment of representative payees, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(C), (3)(B) and (F), (4)(B), 1383(a)(2)(B)(v), (vii)(II), (C)(ii), (D)(ii), and with the Commissioner’s regulations interpreting that section to authorize appointment of custodial institutions as a last resort, see 20 CFR §§404.2021(b)(7), 416.621(b)(7). To suggest that the department’s appointment as representative payee, under the same statutory scheme that forbids the use of “other legal process,” is itself forbidden legal process disregards the “cardinal rule that a statute is to be read as a whole,” King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991), and ignores the Commissioner’s reasonable regulations implementing the Act. See King v. Schafer, 940 F. 2d 1182, 1185 (CA8 1991) (“We cannot believe Congress contemplated this result in enacting § 407(a), particularly when this result would be contrary to another provision of the Social Security Act: §405(j), providing for the appointment of representative payees”), cert. denied sub nom. Crytes v. Schafer, 502 U. S. 1095 (1992); 940 F. 2d, at 1185 (“Section 407(a) was not intended to outlaw a procedure expressly authorized by the Social Security Administration’s own regulations”).

       In arguing that § 407(a) applies here, respondents rely in part on § 407(b), which provides that “[n]o other provision of law .. . may be construed to limit, supersede, or otherwise modify the provisions of this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference to this section.” Given our conclusion that § 407(a), by its terms, does not apply, however, respondents’ reliance is misplaced.

       There is one exception to this rule, although it is not relevant for our present purposes. In October 1996, Congress amended 42 U. S. C. § 1383 to specify that when the Administration issues a retroactive lump sum payment of SSI benefits that exceeds six times the monthly benefit amount, that amount is to be deposited directly into a dedicated interest-bearing bank account to be used only for certain special needs. § 1383(a)(2)(F).

       Moreover, as the Government notes, the position of the Supreme Court of Washington and respondents is ultimately “one of empty formalism” because a State could, indisputably, use a foster child’s Social Security benefits directly for the costs of care and then reduce the State’s own funding by the same amount. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28. The financial result would be the same as in the system currently used by the department, yet the practical advantages of the reimbursement method of accounting would be lost.

       It bears mentioning that nothing in the State Supreme Court’s reasoning limits its holding to state agencies. The state court’s logic would apply equally to parents serving as representative payees, since they, like the department, are under a legal obligation to support their children’s basic needs irrespective of Social Security benefits. See, e. g., Wash. Rev. Code § 74.20A.010 (2002). We find it hard to believe that Congress would have intended this result, which would likely impose onerous and absurd accounting requirements on parents. See, e.g., Mellies v. Mellies, 249 Kan. 28, 33, 815 P. 2d 114, 117 (1991) (holding that a parent “had no obligation to exhaust his personal finances in providing for [his child’s] support before spending any of [the child’s] social security benefits on the child’s maintenance”); In re Guardianship of Nelson, 547 N. W. 2d 105, 108, 109 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (stating that because Social Security benefits are “not a windfall” for the beneficiary, “a representative payee parent can use his or her child’s social security survivor benefits for the child’s current maintenance regardless of the parent’s financial ability to meet those needs”).

       Respondents also go beyond the § 407(a) issue to argue that the department violates § 405(j) itself, by, for example, failing to exercise discretion in how it uses benefits, periodically “sweeping” beneficiaries’ accounts to pay for past care, and “double dipping” by using benefits to reimburse the State for costs previously recouped from other sources. These allegations, and respondents’ §405(j) stand-alone arguments more generally, are far afield of the question on which we granted certiorari. Moreover, constitutional claims aside, respondents’ complaint and the class-action certification related only to § 407(a). Accordingly, we decline to reach respondents’ § 405(j) arguments here, except insofar as they relate to the proper interpretation of § 407(a). Respondents are free to press their standalone § 405(j) arguments before the Commissioner, who bears responsibility for overseeing representative payees, or elsewhere as appropriate.

       The Act does allow a state representative payee to use the lesser of 10 percent of monthly benefits or $25 per month to offset administrative expenses. See 42 U. S. C. §§405(j)(4)(A)(i), 1383(a)(2)(D)(i). Nevertheless, at least with respect to SSI, many States spend considerably more to identify eligible foster children and assist them in obtaining benefits. According to the department, for example, the process of screening potential SSI applicants among foster children and applying for benefits on their behalf involves 27 staff members and costs $1.9 million annually. See Application to Reeall and Stay the Mandate of the Supreme Court of Washington Pending Certiorari, No. 01A557, pp. 18-19. For this reason, the department has said that it would not seek to become the representative payee for SSI beneficiaries absent an ability to use benefits to recoup some costs. See ibid.


author: Chief Justice Rehnquist Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens,

text:
    SCHEIDLER et al. v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., et al.
    No. 01-1118.
    Argued December 4, 2002
    Decided February 26, 2003

      Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’Con-nor, Scaua, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, post, p. 411. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 412.

      Roy I Englert, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. On the briefs in No. 01-1118 were Alan Un-tereiner, Arnon D. Siegel, Kathryn S. Zecca, Sherri Lynn Wolson, Thomas Brejcha, Deborah Fischer, and D. Colette Wilson. On the brief in No. 01-1119 were Jay Alan Seku-low, Colby M. May, Stuart J. Roth, James M. Henderson, Sr., Vincent P. McCarthy, Walter M. Weber, Larry L. Crain, David A. Cortman, Robert W Ash, Thomas P. Monaghan, and Charles E. Rice.

      Solicitor General Olson argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Chertoff, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, Lisa Schiavo Blatt, and Frank J. Marine.

      Fay Clayton argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Susan Valentine, Joyce A. Pollack, Lowell E. Sachnoff, A. Stephen Hut, Jr., David W. Ogden, Terry A. Maroney, and Kimberly A. Parker.

      Together with No. 01-1119, Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

       Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Alabama et al. by William H. Pryor, Jr., Attorney General of Alabama, and Charles B. Campbell, Deputy Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, and Robert Torres of the Northern Mariana Islands; for Americans United for Life by Nikolas T. Nikas, Denise M. Burke, Dorinda C. Bord-lee, and G. Robert Blakey; for Catholics for Life, Sacramento, by James Joseph Lynch, Jr.; for the Center for Individual Rights by Michael E. Rosman; for Concerned Women for America by Theresa Schrempp and Mark L. Lorbiecki; for Liberty Counsel by Mathew D. Staver; for the Life Legal Defense Foundation by Andrew W. Zepeda and Catherine W. Short; for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by William J. Mertens; for the New York Council of Defense Lawyers by Richard A Greenberg, Karl E. Pflanz, and Victor J. Rocco; for the Rutherford Institute by Jamin B. Raskin, John W. Whitehead, and Steven H. Aden; and for the Seamless Garment Network et al. by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., William W. Bassett, G. Robert Blakey, Angela C. Carmella, Robert A Destro, Marie A Failinger, Victor Gregory Rosenblum, and Gerald F. Uelmen.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of California et al. by Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, Manuel M. Medeiros, Solicitor General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Helen G. Arens, Deputy Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York, Caitlin J. Halligan, Solicitor General, and Daniel J. Chepaitis, Assistant Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Mike McGrath oí Montana, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia; for the American Medical Association et al. by William A Norris, Michael C. Small, and Sandra M. Lee; for the Feminist Majority Foundation et al. by Steven G. Gey; for Former Federal Prosecutors et al. by Maria T. Vullo; for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law by Joseph R. Bankoff Thomas Henderson, and Nancy Anderson; for Motorola Credit Corp. by Charles G. Cole, Howard H. Stahl, and Bruce C. Bishop; for the NARAL Foundation/NARAL et al. by Amy E. Weissman, Sara N. Love, and Lawrence S. Ottinger; and for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice et al. by George R. Kucik and Bonnie J. Campbell.

      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., by Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr.; for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., by Jeffrey S. Kerr and Craig M. Bradley; for Texas Black Americans for Life et al. by Lawrence J. Joyce; and for Emily Lyons by Pamela L. Sumners.

   Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari in these cases to answer two questions. First, whether petitioners committed extortion within the meaning of the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951. Second, whether respondents, as private litigants, may obtain injunctive relief in a civil action pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). We hold that petitioners did not commit extortion because they did not “obtain” property from respondents as required by the Hobbs Act. We further hold that our determination with respect to extortion under the Hobbs Act renders insufficient the other bases or predicate acts of racketeering supporting the jury’s conclusion that petitioners violated RICO. Therefore, we reverse without reaching the question of the availability of private injunctive relief under § 1964(c) of RICO.

We once again address questions arising from litigation between petitioners, a coalition of antiabortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), Joseph Scheidler, and other individuals and organizations that oppose legal abortion, and respondents, the National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW), a national nonprofit organization that supports the legal availability of abortion, and two health care centers that perform abortions. Our earlier decision provides a substantial description of the factual and procedural history of this litigation, see National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U. S. 249 (1994), and so we recount only those details necessary to address the questions here presented.

In 1986, respondents sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging, inter alia, that petitioners violated RICO’s §§ 1962(a), (c), and (d). They claimed that petitioners, all of whom were associated with PLAN, the alleged racketeering enterprise, were members of a nationwide conspiracy to “shut down” abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity that included acts of extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act.

The District Court dismissed respondents’ RICO claims for failure to allege that the predicate acts of racketeering or the racketeering enterprise were economically motivated. See National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 765 F. Supp. 937 (ND Ill. 1991). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that dismissal. See National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 968 F. 2d 612 (1992). We granted certiorari and reversed, concluding that RICO does not require proof that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose. See Scheidler, 510 U. S., at 256-262. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

After a 7-week trial, a six-member jury concluded that petitioners violated the civil provisions of RICO. By answering a series of special interrogatory questions, the jury found, inter alia, that petitioners’ alleged “pattern of racketeering activity” included 21 violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951; 25 violations of state extortion law; 25 instances of attempting or conspiring to commit either federal or state extortion; 28 violations of the Travel Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1952; and 23 instances of attempting to violate the Travel Act. The jury awarded $31,455.64 to respondent, the National Women’s Health Organization of Delaware, Inc., and $54,471.28 to the National Women’s Health Organization of Summit, Inc. These damages were trebled pursuant to § 1964(e). Additionally, the District Court entered a permanent nationwide injunction prohibiting petitioners from obstructing access to the clinics, trespassing on clinic property, damaging clinic property, or using violence or threats of violence against the clinics, their employees, or their patients.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in relevant part. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ contention that the things respondents claimed were “obtained” — the class women’s right to seek medical services from the clinics, the clinic doctors’ rights to perform their jobs, and the clinics’ rights to provide medical services and otherwise conduct their business — were not “property” for purposes of the Hobbs Act. The court explained that it had “repeatedly held that intangible property such as the right to conduct a business can be considered ‘property’ under the Hobbs Act.” 267 F. 3d 687, 709 (2001). Likewise, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ claim that even if “property” was involved, petitioners did not “obtain” that property; they merely forced respondents to part with it. Again relying on Circuit precedent, the court held that “ ‘as a legal matter, an extortionist can violate the Hobbs Act without either seeking or receiving money or anything else. A loss to, or interference with the rights of, the victim is all that is required.’” Ibid. (quoting United States v. Stillo, 57 F. 3d 553, 559 (CA7 1995)). Finally, the Court of Appeals upheld the issuance of the nationwide injunction, finding that private plaintiffs are entitled to obtain injunctive relief under § 1964(c) of RICO. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1016 (2002), and now reverse.

We first address the question whether petitioners’ actions constituted extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act. That Act defines extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongfiil use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” 18 U. S. C. § 1951(b)(2). Petitioners allege that the jury’s verdict and the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the verdict represent a vast and unwarranted expansion of extortion under the Hobbs Act. They say that the decisions below “rea[d] the requirement of ‘obtaining’ completely out of the statute” and conflict with the proper understanding of property for purposes of the Hobbs Act. Brief for Petitioners Joseph Scheidler et al. in No. 01-1118, pp. 11-13.

Respondents, throughout the course of this litigation, have asserted, as the jury instructions at the trial reflected, that petitioners committed extortion under the Hobbs Act by using or threatening to use force, violence, or fear to cause respondents “to give up” property rights, namely, “a woman’s right to seek medical services from a clinic, the right of the doctors, nurses or other clinic staff to perform their jobs, and the right of the clinics to provide medical services free from wrongful threats, violence, coercion and fear.” Jury Instruction No. 24, App. 136. Perhaps recognizing the apparent difficulty in reconciling either its position (that “giving] up” these alleged property rights is sufficient) or the Court of Appeals’ holding (that “interfering] with such rights” is sufficient) with the requirement that petitioners “obtained] . . . property from” them, respondents have shifted the thrust of their theory. 267 F. 3d, at 709. Respondents now assert that petitioners violated the Hobbs Act by “seeking to get control of the use and disposition of respondents’ property.” Brief for Respondents 24. They argue that because the right to control the use and disposition of an asset is property, petitioners, who interfered with, and in some instances completely disrupted, the ability of the clinics to function, obtained or attempted to obtain respondents’ property.

The United States offers a view similar to that of respondents, asserting that “where the property at issue is a business’s intangible right to exercise exclusive control over the use of its assets, [a] defendant obtains that property by obtaining control over the use of those assets.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22. Although the Government acknowledges that the jury’s finding of extortion may have been improperly based on the conclusion that petitioners deprived respondents of a liberty interest, it maintains that under its theory of liability, petitioners committed extortion.

We need not now trace what are the outer boundaries of extortion liability under the Hobbs Act, so that liability might be based on obtaining something as intangible as another’s right to exercise exclusive control over the use of a party’s business assets. Our decisions in United States v. Green, 350 U. S. 415, 420 (1956) (explaining that “extortion ... in no way depends upon having a direct benefit conferred on the person who obtains the property”), and Carpenter v. United States, 484 U. S. 19, 27 (1987) (finding that confidential business information constitutes “property” for purposes of the federal mail fraud statute), do not require such a result. Whatever the outer boundaries may be, the effort to characterize petitioners’ actions here as an “obtaining of property from” respondents is well beyond them. Such a result would be an unwarranted expansion of the meaning of that phrase.

Absent contrary direction from Congress, we begin our interpretation of statutory language with the general presumption that a statutory term has its common-law meaning. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 592 (1990); Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 263 (1952). At common law, extortion was a property offense committed by a public official who took “any money or thing of value” that was not due to him under the pretense that he was entitled to such property by virtue of his office. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 141 (1765); 3 R. Anderson, Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure § 1393, pp. 790-791 (1957). In 1946, Congress enacted the Hobbs Act, which explicitly “expanded the common-law definition of extortion to include acts by private individuals.” Evans v. United States, 504 U. S. 255, 261 (1992) (emphasis deleted). While the Hobbs Act expanded the scope of common-law extortion to include private individuals, the statutory language retained the requirement that property must be “obtained.” See 18 U.S. C. § 1951(b)(2).

Congress used two sources of law as models in formulating the Hobbs Act: the Penal Code of New York and the Field Code, a 19th-century model penal code. See Evans, supra, at 261-262, n. 9. Both the New York statute and the Field Code defined extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.” 4 Commissioners of the Code, Proposed Penal Code of the State of New York §613 (1865) (reprint 1998) (Field Code); N. Y. Penal Law §850 (1909). The Field Code explained that extortion was one of four property crimes, along with robbery, larceny, and embezzlement, that included “the criminal acquisition of... property.” §584 note, p. 210. New York case law before the enactment of the Hobbs Act demonstrates that this “obtaining of property” requirement included both a deprivation and acquisition of property. See, e. g., People v. Ryan, 232 N. Y. 234, 236, 133 N. E. 572, 573 (1921) (explaining that an intent “to extort” requires an accompanying intent to “gain money or property”); People v. Weinseimer, 117 App. Div. 603, 616, 102 N. Y. S. 579, 588 (1907) (noting that in an extortion prosecution, the issue that must be decided is whether the accused “receive[d] [money] from the complainant”).

We too have recognized that the “obtaining” requirement of extortion under New York law entailed both a deprivation and acquisition of property. See United States v. Enmons, 410 U. S. 396, 406, n. 16 (1973) (noting that “[j]udicial construction of the New York statute” demonstrated that “extortion requires an intent ‘to obtain that which in justice and equity the party is not entitled to receive’ ” (quoting People v. Cuddihy, 151 Misc. 318, 324, 271 N. Y. S. 450, 456 (1934))). Most importantly, we have construed the extortion provision of the Hobbs Act at issue in these eases to require not only the deprivation but also the acquisition of property. See, e. g., Enmons, supra, at 400 (Extortion under the Hobbs Act requires a “‘wrongful’ taking of . . . property” (emphasis added)). With this understanding of the Hobbs Act’s requirement that a person must “obtain” property from another party to commit extortion, we turn to the facts of these cases.

There is no dispute in these cases that petitioners interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived respondents of their ability to exercise their property rights. Likewise, petitioners’ counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients’ conduct were criminal. But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of “shutting down” a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion because petitioners did not “obtain” respondents’ property. Petitioners may have deprived or sought to deprive respondents of their alleged property right of exclusive control of their business assets, but they did not acquire any such property. Petitioners neither pursued nor received “something of value from” respondents that they could exercise, transfer, or sell. United States v. Nardello, 393 U. S. 286, 290 (1969). To conclude that such actions constituted extortion would effectively discard the statutory requirement that property must be obtained from another, replacing it instead with the notion that merely interfering with or depriving someone of property is sufficient to constitute extortion.

Eliminating the requirement that property must be obtained to constitute extortion would not only conflict with the express requirement of the Hobbs Act, it would also eliminate the recognized distinction between extortion and the separate crime of coercion — a distinction that is implicated in these cases. The crime of coercion, which more accurately describes the nature of petitioners’ actions, involves the use of force or threat of force to restrict another’s freedom of action. Coercion’s origin is statutory, and it was clearly defined in the New York Penal Code as a separate, and lesser, offense than extortion when Congress turned to New York law in drafting the Hobbs Act. New York case law applying the coercion statute before the passage of the Hobbs Act involved the prosecution of individuals who, like petitioners, employed threats and acts of force and violence to dictate and restrict the actions and decisions of businesses. See, e.g., People v. Ginsberg, 262 N. Y. 556, 188 N. E. 62 (1933) (affirming convictions for coercion where defendant used threatened and actual property damage to compel the owner of a drug store to become a member of a local trade association and to remove price advertisements for specific merchandise from his store’s windows); People v. Scotti, 266 N. Y. 480, 195 N. E. 162 (1934) (affirming conviction for coercion where defendants used threatened and actual force to compel a manufacturer to enter into an agreement with a labor union of which the defendants were members); People v. Kaplan, 240 App. Div. 72, 269 N. Y. S. 161 (1934) (affirming convictions for coercion where defendants, members of a labor union, used threatened and actual physical violence to compel other members of the union to drop lawsuits challenging the manner in which defendants were handling the union’s finances).

With this distinction between extortion and coercion clearly drawn in New York law prior to 1946, Congress’ decision to include extortion as a violation of the Hobbs Act and omit coercion is significant assistance to our interpretation of the breadth of the extortion provision. This assistance is amplified by other evidence of Congress’ awareness of the difference between these two distinct crimes. In 1934, Congress formulated the Anti-Racketeering Act, ch. 569, 48 Stat. 979. This Act, which was the predecessor to the Hobbs Act, targeted, as its name suggests, racketeering activities that affected interstate commerce, including both extortion and coercion as defined under New York law. Accordingly, the Act contained both a section explicitly prohibiting coercion and a section prohibiting the offense of extortion as defined by the Field Code and New York Penal Code. See ch. 569, §§ 2(a) and 2(b).

Several years after the enactment of the Anti-Racketeering Act, this Court decided United States v. Teamsters, 315 U. S. 521 (1942). In Teamsters, this Court construed an exception provided in the Anti-Racketeering Act for the payment of wages by a bona fide employer to a bona fide employee to find that the Act “did not cover the actions of union truckdrivers who exacted money by threats or violence from out-of-town drivers in return for undesired and often unutilized services.” United States v. Culbert, 435 U. S. 371, 377 (1978) (citing Teamsters, supra). “Congressional disapproval of this decision was swift,” and the Hobbs Act was subsequently enacted to supersede the Anti-Racketeering Act and reverse the result in Teamsters. Enmons, 410 U. S., at 402, and n. 8. The Act prohibited interference with commerce by “robbery or extortion” but, as explained above, did not mention coercion.

This omission of coercion is particularly significant in light of the fact that after Teamsters, a “paramount congressional concern” in drafting the Hobbs Act “was to be clear about what conduct was prohibited.” Culbert, supra, at 378. Accordingly, the Act “carefully defines its key terms, such as ‘robbery,’ ‘extortion,’ and ‘commerce.’ ” 435 U. S., at 373. Thus, while coercion and extortion certainly overlap to the extent that extortion necessarily involves the use of coercive conduct to obtain property, there has been and continues to be a recognized difference between these two crimes, see, e. g., ALI, Model Penal Code and Commentaries §§ 212.5, 223.4 (1980) (hereinafter Model Penal Code), and we find it evident that this distinction was not lost on Congress in formulating the Hobbs Act.

We have said that the words of the Hobbs Act “do not lend themselves to restrictive interpretation” because they “ ‘manifest]... a purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence.’” Culbert, supra, at 373 (quoting Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212, 215 (1960)). We have also said, construing the Hobbs Act in Enmons, supra, at 411:

“Even if the language and history of the Act were less clear than we have found them to be, the Act could not properly be expanded as the Government suggests — for two related reasons. First, this being a criminal statute, it must be strictly construed, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of lenity” (citations omitted).

We think that these two seemingly antithetical statements can be reconciled. Culbert refused to adopt the view that Congress had not exercised the full extent of its commerce power in prohibiting extortion which “affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce.” But there is no contention by petitioners here that their acts did not affect interstate commerce. Their argument is that their acts did not amount to the crime of extortion as set forth in the Act, so the rule of lenity referred to in Enmons may apply to their case quite consistently with the statement in Culbert. “[W]hen there are two rational readings of a criminal statute, one harsher than the other, we are to choose the harsher only when Congress has spoken in clear and definite language.” McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 359-360 (1987). If the distinction between extortion and coercion, which we find controls these cases, is to be abandoned, such a significant expansion of the law’s coverage must come from Congress, and not from the courts.

Because we find that petitioners did not obtain or attempt to obtain property from respondents, we conclude that there was no basis upon which to find that they committed extortion under the Hobbs Act.

The jury also found that petitioners had committed extortion under various state-law extortion statutes, a separate RICO predicate offense. Petitioners challenged the jury instructions as to these on appeal, but the Court of Appeals held that any error was harmless, because the Hobbs Act verdicts were sufficient to support the relief awarded. Respondents argue in this Court that state extortion offenses do not have to be identical to Hobbs Act extortion to be predicate offenses supporting a RICO violation. They concede, however, that for a state offense to be an “act or threat involving . . . extortion, . . . which is chargeable under State law,” as RICO requires, see 18 U. S. C. § 1961(1), the conduct must be capable of being generically classified as extortionate. Brief for Respondents 33-34. They further agree that such “generic” extortion is defined as “ ‘obtaining something of value from another with his consent induced by the wrongful use of force, fear, or threats.’ ” Id., at 34 (quoting Nardello, 393 U. S., at 290).

This concession is in accord with our decisions in Nardello and Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575 (1990). In Nardello, we held that the Travel Act’s prohibition, 18 U. S. C. § 1952(b)(2), against ‘‘extortion ... in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States” applies to extortionate conduct classified by a state penal code as blackmail rather than extortion. We determined that if an act prohibited under state law fell within a generic definition of extortion, for which we relied on the Model Penal Code’s definition of “obtaining something of value from another with his consent induced by the wrongful use of force, fear, or threats,” it would constitute a violation of the Travel Act’s prohibition regardless of the State’s label for that unlawful act. - See Nardello, supra, at 296 (explaining that regardless of Pennsylvania’s labeling defendants’ acts as blackmail and not extortion, defendants violated the Travel Act because “the indictment encompasses a type of activity generally known as extortionate since money was to be obtained from the victim by virtue of fear and threats of exposure”). In Taylor, relying in part on Nardello, we concluded that in including “burglary” as a violent crime in 18 U. S. C. §924(e)’s sentencing enhancement provision for felons’ possessing firearms, Congress meant “burglary” in “the generic sense in which the term is now used in the criminal codes of most States.” 495 U. S., at 598. Accordingly, where as here the Model Penal Code and a majority of States recognize the crime of extortion as requiring a party to obtain or to seek to obtain property, as the Hobbs Act requires, the state extortion offense for purposes of RICO must have a similar requirement.

Because petitioners did not obtain or attempt to obtain respondents’ property, both the state extortion claims and the claim of attempting or conspiring to commit state extortion were fatally flawed. The 23 violations of the Travel Act and 23 acts of attempting to violate the Travel Act also fail. These acts were committed in furtherance of allegedly extortionate conduct. But we have already determined that petitioners did not commit or attempt to commit extortion.

Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury’s finding of a RICO violation must be reversed, the judgment that petitioners violated RICO must also be reversed. Without an underlying RICO violation, the injunction issued by the District Court must necessarily be vacated. We therefore need not address the second question presented— whether a private plaintiff in a civil RICO action is entitled to injunctive relief under 18 U. S. C. § 1964.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly

Reversed.

Justice Ginsburg,

with whom Justice Breyer joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion, persuaded that the Seventh Circuit’s decision accords undue breadth to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act). As Justice Stevens recognizes, “Congress has enacted specific legislation responsive to the concerns that gave rise to these cases.” Post, at 417 (dissenting opinion). In the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U. S. C. § 248, Congress crafted a statutory response that homes in on the problem of criminal activity at health care facilities. See ante, at 404-405, and n. 9 (noting petitioners’ acknowledgment that at least some of the protesters’ conduct was criminal, and observing that “[t]he crime of coercion [a separate, and lesser, offense than extortion] more accurately describes the nature of petitioners’ actions”). Thus, the principal effect of a decision against petitioners here would have been on other cases pursued under RICO.

RICO, which empowers both prosecutors and private enforcers, imposes severe criminal penalties and hefty civil liability on those engaged in conduct within the Act’s compass. See, e. g., § 1963(a) (up to 20 years’ imprisonment and wide-ranging forfeiture for a single criminal violation); § 1964(a) (broad civil injunctive relief); § 1964(c) (treble damages and attorneys’ fees for private plaintiffs). It has already “evolv[ed] into something quite different from the original conception of its enactors,” Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 500 (1985), warranting “concern[s] over the consequences of an unbridled reading of the statute,” id., at 481. The Court is rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO’s domain further by endorsing the expansive definition of “extortion” adopted by the Seventh Circuit.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

The term “extortion” as defined in the Hobbs Act refers to “the obtaining of property from another.” 18 U. S. C. § 1951(b)(2). The Court’s murky opinion seems to hold that this phrase covers nothing more than the acquisition of tangible property. No other federal court has ever construed this statute so narrowly.

For decades federal judges have uniformly given the term “property” an expansive construction that encompasses the intangible right to exercise exclusive control over the lawful use of business assets. The right to serve customers or to solicit new business is thus a protected property right. The use of violence or threats of violence to persuade the owner of a business to surrender control of such an intangible right is an appropriation of control embraced by the term “obtaining.” That is the commonsense reading of the statute that other federal judges have consistently and wisely embraced in numerous cases that the Court does not discuss or even cite. Recognizing this settled definition of property, as I believe one must, the conclusion that petitioners obtained this property from respondents is amply supported by the evidence in the record.

Because this construction of the Hobbs Act has been so uniform, I only discuss a few of the more significant cases. For example, in United States v. Tropiano, 418 F. 2d 1069 (1969), the Second Circuit held that threats of physical violence to persuade the owners of a competing trash removal company to refrain from soliciting customers in certain areas violated the Hobbs Act. The court’s reasoning is directly applicable to these cases:

“The application of the Hobbs Act to the present facts of this case has been seriously challenged by the appellants upon the ground that the Government’s evidence indicates that no ‘property’ was extorted and that there was no interference or attempted interference with interstate commerce. They assert that nothing more than ‘the right to do business’ in the Milford area was surrendered by Caron and that such a right was not ‘property’ ‘obtained’ by the appellants, as those terms are used in the Act. While they concede that rubbish removal accounts which are purchased and sold are probably property, they argue that the right to solicit business is amorphous and cannot be squared with the Congressional expression in the Act of ‘obtaining property.’ The Hobbs Act ‘speaks in broad language, manifesting a purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence.’ Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212, 215 (1960). The concept of property under the Hobbs Act, as devolved from its legislative history and numerous decisions, is not limited to physical or tangible property or things (United States v. Provenzano, 334 F. 2d 678 (3d Cir. 1964); United States v. Nedley, 255 F. 2d 350 (3d Cir. 1958)), but includes, in a broad sense, any valuable right considered as a source or element of wealth (Bianchi v. United States, 219 F. 2d 182 (8th Cir. 1955)), and does not depend upon a direct benefit being conferred on the person who obtains the property (United States v. Green, 350 U. S. 415 (1956)).
“Obviously, Caron had a right to solicit business from anyone in any area without any territorial restrictions by the appellants and only by the exercise of such a right could Caron obtain customers whose accounts were admittedly valuable.... The right to pursue a lawful business including the solicitation of customers necessary to the conduct of such business has long been recognized as a property right within the protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution (Louis K. Ligget Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U. S. 105 (1928); cf., Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 465 (1921).... Caron’s right to solicit accounts in Milford, Connecticut constituted property within the Hobbs Act definition.” Id., at 1075-1076 (some citations omitted).

The Tropiano case’s discussion of obtaining property has been cited with approval by federal courts in virtually every circuit in the country. See, e. g., United States v. Hathaway, 534 F. 2d 386, 396 (CA1 1976); United States v. Arena, 180 F. 3d 380, 392 (CA2 1999); Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle, 868 F. 2d 1342, 1350 (CA3 1989); United States v. Santoni, 585 F. 2d 667, 673 (CA4 1978); United States v. Nadaline, 471 F. 2d 340, 344 (CA5 1973); United States v. Debs, 949 F. 2d 199, 201 (CA6 1991); United States v. Lewis, 797 F. 2d 358, 364 (CA7 1986); United States v. Zemek, 634 F. 2d 1159, 1174 (CA9 1980). Its interpretation of the term “property” is consistent with pre-Hobbs Act decisions of this Court, see Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 74 (1917) (property “consists of the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of a person’s acquisitions without control or diminution”), the New York Court of Appeals, see People v. Barondess, 133 N. Y. 649, 31 N. E. 240 (1892), the California Supreme Court, People v. Cadman, 57 Cal. 562 (1881), and with our recent decision in Carpenter v. United States, 484 U. S. 19 (1987).

The courts that have considered the applicability of the Hobbs Act to attempts to disrupt the operations of abortion clinics have uniformly adhered to the holdings of cases like Tropiano. See, e. g., Libertad v. Welch, 53 F. 3d 428, 438, n. 6 (CA1 1995); Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle, 868 F. 2d, at 1350; United States v. Anderson, 716 F. 2d 446, 447-450 (CA7 1983). Judge Kearse’s endorsement of the Government’s position in United States v. Arena, 180 F. 3d 380 (CA2 1999), followed this consistent line of cases. The jury had found that the defendants had engaged in “an overall strategy to cause abortion providers, particularly Planned Parenthood and Yoffa, to give up their property rights to engage in the business of providing abortion services for fear of future attacks.” Id., at 393. Judge Kearse described how this behavior fell well within the reach of the Hobbs Act:

“[Property may be tangible or intangible, and the property at issue here was the intangible right to conduct business free from threats of violence and physical harm. ... A perpetrator plainly may ‘obtai[n]’ property without receiving anything, for obtaining includes ‘at-tainting] . .. disposal of,’ Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1559 (1976); and ‘disposal’ includes ‘the regulation of the fate ... of something,’ id. at 655. Thus, even when an extortionist has not taken possession of the property that the victim has relinquished, she has nonetheless ‘obtained]’ that property if she has used violence to force her victim to abandon it. The fact that the target of a threat or attack may have refused to relinquish his property does not lessen the extortionist’s liability under the Hobbs Act, for the Act, by its terms, also reaches attempts. See 18 U. S. C. § 1951(a); McLaughlin v. Anderson, 962 F. 2d 187, 194 (2d Cir. 1992).
“In sum, where the property in question is the victim’s right to conduct a business free from threats of violence and physical harm, a person who has committed or threatened violence or physical harm in order to induce abandonment of that right has obtained, or attempted to obtain, property within the meaning of the Hobbs Act.” Id., at 394.

In my opinion Judge Kearse’s analysis of the issue is manifestly correct. Even if the issue were close, however, three additional considerations provide strong support for her conclusion. First, the uniform construction of the statute that has prevailed throughout the country for decades should remain the law unless and until Congress decides to amend the statute. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U. S. 56, 74 (1990) (Stevens, J., concurring); Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Schwalb, 493 U. S. 40, 51 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 376-377 (1987) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220, 268-269 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Second, both this Court and all other federal courts have consistently identified the Hobbs Act as a statute that Congress intended to be given a broad construction. See, e. g., Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212 (1960); United States v. Staszcuk, 517 F. 2d 53 (CA7 1975). Third, given the fact that Congress has enacted specific legislation responsive to the concerns that gave rise to these cases, the principal beneficiaries of the Court’s dramatic retreat from the position that federal prosecutors and federal courts have maintained throughout the history of this important statute will certainly be the class of professional criminals whose conduct persuaded Congress that the public needed federal protection from extortion.

I respectfully dissent.

       The other petitioners include Andrew Scholberg, Timothy Murphy, and Operation Rescue.

       NOW represents a certified class of all NOW members and nonmembers who have used or would use the services of an abortion clinic in the United States. The two clinics, the National Women’s Health Organization of Summit, Inc., and the National Women’s Health Organization of Delaware, Inc., represent a class of all clinics in the United States at which abortions are provided.

       The Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951(a), provides that “[w]hoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

       The instruction given to the jury regarding extortion under the Hobbs Act provided that “[plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant and others associated with PLAN committed acts that violate federal law prohibiting extortion. In order to show that extortion has been committed in violation of federal law, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant or someone else associated with PLAN knowingly, willfully, and 'wrongfully used actual or threatened force, violence or fear to cause women, clinic doctors, nurses or other staff, or the clinics themselves to give up a ‘property right.’” Jury Instruction No. 24, App. 136.

       The Solicitor General agreed at oral argument that even if we accept the Government’s view as to extortion under the Hobbs Act, the cases must be remanded because the generalized jury instruction regarding federal extortion included a woman’s right to seek medical services as a property right petitioners could extort from respondents; a right he acknowledged is more accurately characterized as an individual liberty interest. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 30-31.

       Accordingly, the dissent is mistaken to suggest that our decision reaches, much less rejects, lower court decisions such as United States v. Tropiano, 418 F. 2d 1069, 1076 (1969), in which the Second Circuit concluded that the intangible right to solicit refuse collection accounts “constituted property within the Hobbs Act definition.”

       Representative Hobbs explicitly stated that the term extortion was “based on the New York law.” 89 Cong. Rec. 3227 (1943).

       The dissent endorses the opinion of the Court of Appeals in United States v. Arena, 180 F. 3d 380 (CA2 1999), to reach a more expansive definition of “obtain” than is found in the cases just cited. The Court of Appeals quoted part of a dictionary definition of the word “obtain” in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 180 F. 3d, at 394. The full text of the definition reads “to gain or attain possession or disposal of.” That court then resorted to the dictionary definition of “disposal,” which includes “the regulation of the fate ... of something.” Surely if the rule of lenity, which we have held applicable to the Hobbs Act, see infra, at 408, means anything, it means that the familiar meaning of the word “obtain”— to gain possession of — should be preferred to the vague and obscure “to attain regulation of the fate of.”

       “Question: But are we talking about actions that constitute the commission of some kind of criminal offense in the process?
      “Mk. Englert: Oh, yes. Trespass.
      “Question: Yes, and other things, destruction of property and so forth, I suppose.
      “Mr. Englert: Oh, yes_
      “Question: I mean, we’re not talking about conduct that is lawful here.
      “Mr. Englert: We are not talking about extortion, but we are talking about some things that could be punished much less severely. It has never been disputed in this case . .. that there were trespasses.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9.

       New York Penal Law § 530 (1909), Coercing another person a misdemeanor, provided: “A person who with a view to compel another person to do or to abstain from doing an act which such other person has a legal right to do or to abstain from doing, wrongfully and unlawfully,
      “1. Uses violence or inflicts injury upon such other person or his family, or a member thereof, or upon his property or threatens such violence or injury; or,
      “2. Deprives any such person of any tool, implement or clothing or hinders him in the use thereof; or,
      “3. Uses or attempts the intimidation of such person by threats or force,
      “Is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

      A subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, known as the Copeland Subcommittee, employed a working definition of “racketeering,” which included organized conspiracies to “commit the crimes of extortion or coercion, or attempts to commit extortion or coercion, within the definition of these crimes found in the penal law of the State of New York and other jurisdictions.” S. Rep. No. 1189, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1937); United States v. Culbert, 435 U. S. 371, 375-376 (1978).

       As we reported in Culbert, supra, at 378: “Indeed, many Congressmen praised the [Hobbs Act] because it set out with more precision the conduct that was being made criminal. As Representative Hobbs noted, the words robbery and extortion ‘have been construed a thousand times by the courts. Everybody knows what they mean’ ” (quoting 91 Cong. Rec. 11912 (1945)).

       Under the Model Penal Code §223.4, Comment 1, pp. 201-202, extortion requires that one “obtains [the] property of another” using threat as “the method employed to deprive the victim of his property.” This “obtaining” is further explained as “ ‘bringing] about a transfer or purported transfer of a legal interest in the property, whether to the obtainer or another.’” Id., §223.3, Comment 2, at 182. Coercion, on the other hand, is defined as making “specified categories of threats . . . with the purpose of unlawfully restricting another’s freedom of action to his detriment.” Id., §212.5, Comment 2, at 264.

      At oral argument, the Government was asked: “[D]o you agree that your interpretation would have been applicable to the civil rights sit-ins?” Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. The Solicitor General responded: “Under some circumstances, it could have if illegal force or threats were used to prevent a business from operating.” Ibid.

       Indeed, the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the nature of property under the Hobbs Act illustrates just how settled this issue was in the Courts of Appeals:
      “The concept of property under the Hobbs Act has not been limited to physical or tangible ‘things.’ The right to make business decisions and to solicit business free from wrongful coercion is a protected property right. See, e. g., United States v. Santoni, 585 F. 2d 667 (4th Cir. 1978) (right to make business decisions free from outside pressure wrongfully imposed); United States v. Nadaline, 471 F. 2d 340 (5th Cir.) (right to business accounts and unrealized profits)_ Cf. United States v. Hathaway, 534 F. 2d 386, 395 (1st Cir.) (rejection of narrow perception of ‘property); Battaglia v. United States, 383 F. 2d 303 (9th Cir. 1967) (right to lease space in bowling alley free from threats).... Chase's right to solicit business free from threatened destruction and physical harm falls within the scope of protected property rights under the Hobbs Act.
      “Evidence of the previously described acts of intimidation and violence suffices. Appellants’ objective was to induce Chase to give up a lucrative business. The fact that their threats were unsuccessful does not preclude conviction.” United States v. Zemek, 634 F. 2d, at 1174 (some citations omitted).
      None of the cases following United States v. Tropiano, 418 F. 2d 1069 (CA2 1969), even considered the novel suggestion that this method of obtaining control of intangible property amounted to nothing more than the nonfederal misdemeanor of “coercion,” see ante, at 405 (majority opinion); ante, at 411 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).

       Congress corrected the Court’s narrow reading of the mail fraud statute in McNally by passing 18 U. S. C. § 1346, which overruled McNally. See, e. g., United States v. Bortnovsky, 879 F. 2d 30, 39 (CA2 1989) (“Section 1346 . . . overrules McNally”). Of course, Congress remains free to correct the Court’s error in these cases as well.

       See Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 694.

       The concern expressed by Justice Ginsburg, ante, at 411, 412, is misguided because an affirmance in these cases would not expand the coverage of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act but would preserve the Federal Government’s ability to bring criminal prosecutions for violent conduct that was, until today, prohibited by the Hobbs Act.