context: Defendants point to no charge proffered by them on economic purpose. In any event, Defendants' contention ignores well-established precedent holding that lack of economic motive does not constitute a defense to Hobbs Act crimes.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: upholding Hobbs Act conviction of antiabortion activists for threatening doctor to induce him to cease performing abortions
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 124 (3d Cir.1975) (“there is no exception to the Hobbs Act” permitting extortion “for a religious purpose”); see also United States v. Anderson, 716 F.2d 446 (7th Cir.1983) (upholding Hobbs Act conviction of antiabortion activists for threatening doctor to induce him to cease performing abortions).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 515 F.2d 112, 124
citation_b.parenthetical: "there is no exception to the Hobbs Act" permitting extortion "for a religious purpose"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 124 (3d Cir.1975) (“there is no exception to the Hobbs Act” permitting extortion “for a religious purpose”); see also United States v. Anderson, 716 F.2d 446 (7th Cir.1983) (upholding Hobbs Act conviction of antiabortion activists for threatening doctor to induce him to cease performing abortions).