Boyle v. U.S.

In its new term that begins this week, the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the proof required to define an enterprise under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Prosecutors accused Edmund Boyle of being part of a New York-based crew of approximately eight men who engaged in a string of bank robberies in at least five states between 1991 and 1999.

In 2005, a jury on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York convicted Boyle of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, bank burglary, bank burglary conspiracy and attempted bank burglary. He was sentenced to more than 12 years imprisonment.

Boyle appealed, arguing that the case brought against him was factually contradictory. The government charged that the robbery was an act of the Boyle Crew enterprise. However, in a previous case it had charged that the robbery was an act of the New Springfield Boys enterprise. On appeal, Boyle maintained that this contradiction violated his right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.



In November 2007, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction, but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing.

“Nothing dictates that a single crime cannot be committed by two enterprises working together, each in furtherance of its own interests,” the court held.

Boyle asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that justices must resolve “an important question of statutory interpretation that has split the federal circuits three ways.” The brief also pointed out that “at least two current members of this court – Justices Scalia and Kennedy – have warned that RICO’s breadth and ‘vagueness’ raise ‘intolerable’ constitutional concerns.”

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre asked the court not to hear the case, contending that the text of RICO “does not include any ‘ascertainable structure’ requirement.”

On Oct. 1, the Supreme Court accepted Boyle v. U.S. for review.

Question presented: Whether, to establish the existence of an “enterprise” under RICO, the government must prove the existence of an entity with an ascertainable structure apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.

The Supreme Court today ruled on the proof required to define an enterprise under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Prosecutors accused Edmund Boyle of being part of a New York-based crew of approximately eight men who engaged in a string of bank robberies in at least five states between 1991 and 1999.

In 2005, a jury on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York convicted Boyle of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, bank burglary, bank burglary conspiracy and attempted bank burglary. He was sentenced to more than 12 years imprisonment.

Boyle appealed, arguing that the case brought against him was factually contradictory. The government charged that the robbery was an act of the Boyle Crew enterprise. However, in a previous case it had charged that the robbery was an act of the New Springfield Boys enterprise. On appeal, Boyle maintained that this contradiction violated his right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.


In November 2007, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction, but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing.

“Nothing dictates that a single crime cannot be committed by two enterprises working together, each in furtherance of its own interests,” the court held.

Boyle asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that justices must resolve “an important question of statutory interpretation that has split the federal circuits three ways.” The brief also pointed out that “at least two current members of this court – Justices Scalia and Kennedy – have warned that RICO’s breadth and ‘vagueness’ raise ‘intolerable’ constitutional concerns.”

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre asked the court not to hear the case, contending that the text of RICO “does not include any ‘ascertainable structure’ requirement.”

On June 8, 2009, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction in a 7-2 ruling.

"The group need not have a name, regular meetings, dues, established rules and regulations, disciplinary procedures, or induction or initiation ceremonies," wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority.

Justices Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented.

Question presented: Whether, to establish the existence of an “enterprise” under RICO, the government must prove the existence of an entity with an ascertainable structure apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.