principle, even though individual instances of the regulated activity may not have substantially affected interstate commerce. Id. at 1215. However, the class of activities analysis set forth in Robinson must be read in the context of a prosecution under the Hobbs Act, a statute providing for an interstate commerce nexus. United States v. Bird, 124 F.3d 667, 677 n. 12 (5th Cir.1997); see Robinson, 119 F.3d at 1213 (jurisdictional element explicitly limits the scope of the Hobbs Act to those robberies and extortion schemes which affect interstate commerce). Since this Court’s Aug. '9, 1996 order was entered in Sierra Club v. San Antonio, two circuit courts of appeals have addressed the constitutionality of the ESA: National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) and Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483, 492 (4th
holding that the esa can protect a species that lives in only one state by virtue of the national interest in biodiversity and other factors holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding the erisa plan administrators good faith to be only one of a number of factors considered in awarding prejudgment interest holding that the national interest in protecting endangered species may outweigh the negligible effect the issue would have on local residents recognizing that a state has a legitimate interest in all insurance policies protecting its residents against risks an interest which the state can protect even though the state action may have repercussions beyond state lines