HR-5054-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Scott Perry (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Hobbs Act — the federal anti-extortion law — to remove the requirement that the use of force or violence to obtain property must be "wrongful." This change would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in United States v. Enmons, which held that union members using violence to achieve legitimate strike objectives could not be prosecuted under the Hobbs Act. The bill would create a limited exemption for conduct incidental to peaceful picketing, minor bodily injury or property damage that is not part of a pattern, and isolated acts not coordinated with broader violent activity — with those exempted acts left to state and local prosecution.
Who benefits
Employers and businesses targeted by strike-related violence or property damage. Non-union workers, contractors, and suppliers who may be physically intimidated during labor disputes. Federal prosecutors who would gain a new tool to charge violent strike conduct. Victims of union-related violence who currently have limited federal recourse. Communities and third parties affected by strike-related disruptions involving violence.
Who is hurt
Labor unions and their members, who would face potential federal felony prosecution for conduct currently shielded by Enmons. Workers engaged in strikes who could be charged federally for acts of violence that were previously handled — if at all — at the state level. Union organizers, who may face a chilling effect on strike activity broadly. Workers in industries with historically contentious labor relations (e.g., longshore, construction, mining) where strike-related confrontations are more common.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Enmons decision created an unjustifiable double standard: the same violent act that would be federal extortion if committed by anyone else is immune from Hobbs Act prosecution simply because it occurs during a labor dispute. They contend that no legitimate union objective requires violence, and that federal law should protect workers, employers, and bystanders from physical harm and property destruction regardless of the perpetrator's labor-related motive. They point to documented cases of strike-related violence — including bombings, shootings, and arson — that went uncharged federally under the Enmons shield.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's removal of the "wrongful" element would expose routine strike conduct to federal felony charges, giving employers and federal prosecutors a powerful tool to suppress legitimate labor organizing. They contend that the existing exemption for "minor" injury or non-patterned conduct is vague and would leave union members uncertain about what actions cross the federal line, chilling protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act. They further argue that state criminal law already addresses violent conduct during strikes, making federal intervention unnecessary and potentially preemptive of a functioning state enforcement system.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment protects labor picketing and organizing as expressive activity, and courts have long distinguished protected strike conduct from unprotected violence. The bill's removal of the "wrongful" element and its vague exemption for "minor" conduct could raise Fifth Amendment due process concerns about whether union members have fair notice of what conduct triggers federal prosecution.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (FBI and U.S. Attorneys) would gain expanded authority to investigate and prosecute strike-related violence as federal felonies; Congress sets the statutory boundaries, and federal courts would review prosecutions and could assess the vagueness of the exemption language.
Historical precedent
The Hobbs Act has been amended several times since 1946, but no prior legislation has directly overturned the Enmons doctrine; multiple prior Congresses introduced similar bills that did not advance.