Supreme Court narrows law for fighting state and local corruption

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

 

Connecting state and local government leaders

The high court’s conservatives ruled that a key anti-corruption law only applies to bribes and not to “gratuities” meant to reward officials for their service.

The Supreme Court made it harder for federal prosecutors to go after state and local officials for corruption Wednesday, significantly narrowing the scope of an anti-corruption law used in much of the country.

The 6-3 decision came in favor of former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder, who challenged his conviction after prosecutors said he received a $13,000 reward from a trucking company that he had steered contracts to.

The high court’s conservative majority determined that the law in question only applied to bribes, which are agreed to before an official commits a corrupt official act, and not to gratuities, which are given afterwards as an expression of gratitude.

The law in question, referred to as Section 666, makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act. It carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the way prosecutors in much of the country had been using the law gave public officials and government employees almost no indication of what was or was not permissible. Neither Congress nor a federal ethics office provided any details, even though the law had been on the books since 1986.

“It is unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials without any coherent federal guidance (or any federal guidance at all) about how an official can distinguish the innocuous from the criminal,” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the opinion, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

Good government advocates criticized the high court’s decision, which follows several other cases in which the court has made it harder to prosecute public corruption. In 2016, for example, the court overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. A unanimous court in 2020 also tossed the convictions of two aides to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who participated in the “Bridgegate” scandal. Furthermore, several Supreme Court justices have also attracted criticism for taking lavish gifts from people advancing legal causes that have landed before the court.

Daniel Weiner, the director of the elections and government program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the majority decision on Wednesday was “a significant escalation” from those cases.

“In prior cases both conservative and liberal-leaning justices seemed to share a concern that over-zealous federal prosecutors were trying to criminalize distasteful conduct that the perpetrators nevertheless could not reasonably have known would send them to federal prison,” Weiner wrote on social media.

“None of that is the case with Snyder, an Indiana mayor who took thousands of dollars in kickbacks for steering city contracts to a truck dealership,” Weiner wrote. “No sane person would think this was legal. Indeed, his conduct would seem to be covered by the plain language of the relevant statute, which criminalizes the corrupt acceptance of payments intended as a ‘reward’ for official acts.”

The outcome could affect other public corruption cases, including the prosecution of former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, whose trial has been on hold pending the Supreme Court decision.

Kavanaugh gave several examples of rewards that elected officials or government employees might receive for their job performance, albeit none of them approaching the $13,000 that Snyder had received in the underlying case.

“Is a $100 Dunkin’ Donuts gift card for a trash collector wrongful?” Kavanaugh wrote. “What about a $200 Nike gift card for a county commissioner who voted to fund new school athletic facilities? Could students take their college professor out to Chipotle for an end-of-term celebration? And if so, would it somehow become criminal to take the professor for a steak dinner? Or to treat her to a Hoosiers game? The government offers no clear federal rules for state and local officials.”

The majority opinion listed several other reasons why the law should not apply to gratuities. The justices said reading the law the way prosecutors had asked them to would lead to an absurd situation, where state and local officials convicted of taking gratuities could be punished with five times as much prison as federal officials who do so. A separate statute sets the maximum punishment for federal officials taking gratuities at two years of prison.

“We cannot readily assume that Congress authorized a 2-year sentence for, say, a Cabinet secretary who accepts an unlawful gratuity while authorizing a 10-year sentence on a local school board member who accepts an identical gratuity,” Kavanaugh wrote. “What sense would that make?”

The majority also said the prosecutors’ interpretation would undercut “the carefully calibrated policy decisions that the states and local governments have made” about the limits they placed on acceptable gratuities for public officials.

“In other words,” Kavanaugh wrote, “a county official could meticulously comply with her county’s local gratuities rules—say, by declining a $200 gift card but accepting a $100 gift card from a neighbor as thanks for her diligent work on a new park—but still face up to 10 years in federal prison because she accepted a thing of value in connection with an official act.”

Before Wednesday’s ruling, federal appeals courts were split on how to read the anti-corruption statute. Two appeals courts—covering seven states—took the approach that the Supreme Court adopted. Five appeals courts—with jurisdiction over 20 states—took the opposite view.

The court’s three liberal justices said the majority’s reading of the law ignored the actual words in the statute, particularly the fact that it includes punishments for people who were “rewarded” for corrupt actions.

“Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s court could love,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

“The question in this case is whether Section 666 criminalizes gratuities in addition to bribes,” Jackson wrote. “The text and purpose of [the law] alone provide an easy answer. The word ‘rewarded’ means to have been given a reward for some action taken. So gratuities are plainly covered.”

That doesn’t mean that all gratuities would be punished, though, she noted. There are several restrictions in the law about when it applies. For example, the government agency has to get more than $10,000 in federal funds a year, the transaction that triggers the payment has to be worth more than $5,000, and the payment can’t be for the official’s bona fide salary.

But Snyder didn’t ask the court whether his case met one of those exceptions, Jackson wrote.

“We have not been asked to settle, once and for all, which gratuities are corrupt and which are quotidian. Snyder did not argue that his $13,000 check was part of some subset of noncriminalized gratuities. Rather (and this is important to note), Snyder has taken an all-or-nothing approach to the argument he makes in this case. He insists that all gratuities—every type in the entire class—are excluded from Section 666,” Jackson wrote.

“Because the statute’s plain text says otherwise, that should have been the end of this case, even if a future petitioner might have asked us to do a more nuanced analysis,” she added.

And Jackson said that prosecutors using Section 666 to go after public officials was “not the dragnet for public school teachers, soccer coaches, or trash collectors that the majority conjures.”

“Rather,” she wrote, “the real cases in which the government has invoked this law involve exactly the type of palm greasing that the statute plainly covers and that one might reasonably expect Congress to care about when targeting graft in state, local, and tribal governments. After today, however, the ability of the federal government to prosecute such obviously wrongful conduct is left in doubt.”

Daniel C. Vock is a senior reporter for Route Fifty based in Washington, D.C.

NEXT STORY: Lessons learned from the Medicaid unwinding period

X
This website uses cookies to enhance user experience and to analyze performance and traffic on our website. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. Learn More / Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Accept Cookies
X
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

When you visit our website, we store cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. However, you can choose not to allow certain types of cookies, which may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our First Party Strictly Necessary Cookies as they are deployed in order to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information about the First and Third Party Cookies used please follow this link.

Allow All Cookies

Manage Consent Preferences

Strictly Necessary Cookies - Always Active

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data, Targeting & Social Media Cookies

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, you have the right to opt-out of the sale of your personal information to third parties. These cookies collect information for analytics and to personalize your experience with targeted ads. You may exercise your right to opt out of the sale of personal information by using this toggle switch. If you opt out we will not be able to offer you personalised ads and will not hand over your personal information to any third parties. Additionally, you may contact our legal department for further clarification about your rights as a California consumer by using this Exercise My Rights link

If you have enabled privacy controls on your browser (such as a plugin), we have to take that as a valid request to opt-out. Therefore we would not be able to track your activity through the web. This may affect our ability to personalize ads according to your preferences.

Targeting cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Social media cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.

If you want to opt out of all of our lead reports and lists, please submit a privacy request at our Do Not Sell page.

Save Settings
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Cookie List

A cookie is a small piece of data (text file) that a website – when visited by a user – asks your browser to store on your device in order to remember information about you, such as your language preference or login information. Those cookies are set by us and called first-party cookies. We also use third-party cookies – which are cookies from a domain different than the domain of the website you are visiting – for our advertising and marketing efforts. More specifically, we use cookies and other tracking technologies for the following purposes:

Strictly Necessary Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Functional Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Performance Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Social Media Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Targeting Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.