## Facts

- John H. Evans, Jr., an elected DeKalb County, Georgia commissioner, was targeted in an FBI undercover investigation into rezoning-related corruption.
- An FBI agent posed as a real estate developer seeking Evans’s help to secure a rezoning vote for a 25-acre tract.
- Evans met and spoke with the agent multiple times about the rezoning request.
- Evans received $7,000 in cash and a $1,000 check payable to his campaign; he disclosed the check as a campaign contribution but did not report the $7,000 on his federal income tax return.
- The jury could infer Evans accepted the cash knowing it was offered to secure his favorable vote and his influence over other commissioners, constituting an implicit agreement to use his office for the payer’s benefit.
- Evans was charged with Hobbs Act extortion affecting interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and filing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).
- The trial court instructed that campaign fundraising is generally lawful, but a public official commits extortion under color of official right if he demands or accepts money in exchange for a specific exercise of official power, even if styled as a campaign contribution.

## Issues

1. Whether extortion “under color of official right” under the Hobbs Act requires an affirmative act of inducement (such as a demand) by the public official.
2. Whether a jury instruction permitting conviction based on knowing acceptance of money in exchange for a specific official act, without requiring a demand or explicit condition, correctly stated the offense elements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment (6–3).
- The Court held that an affirmative act of inducement by a public official is not an element of Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right.
- The government need only prove the official obtained a payment he was not entitled to, knowing it was made in return for official acts.
- The challenged instruction was upheld as consistent with the statute because it required a link between the payment and a specific requested exercise of official power.

## Legal Principles

- “Under color of official right” extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 does not require proof the public official initiated the exchange or demanded payment.
- Passive acceptance of a payment can satisfy the offense if the official knows the payment is offered in return for official action.
- Campaign contributions are generally lawful, but they fall within Hobbs Act liability when accepted (or demanded) as consideration for a specific official act (a quid pro quo), which may be proven through circumstantial evidence.
- The Hobbs Act’s official-right component reflects the common-law understanding of extortion by public officials as closely aligned with taking a bribe.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Hobbs Act extortion “under color of official right” is established when a public official knowingly accepts an improper payment in exchange for official action, even absent a demand or other affirmative inducement, and it affirmed Evans’s convictions under that standard.


Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992)