The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits through the official's efforts.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who sought and accepted a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after helping them win $1.1 million in city contracts to purchase garbage trucks.
In ruling in favor of the former mayor, the judges made a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of illegal dealing, and a gratuity, which can be a gift or reward for a past favor. They said officials can be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not simply for accepting money in exchange for past favors if there was no evidence of illicit dealing.
“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] It also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities (for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photographs, or the like) that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official event. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.
Despite its reference to symbolic gifts such as lunches and framed photographs, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.
But the court's conservative majority said the law in question was a “bribery statute, not a gratuity law.” Kavanaugh said federal law “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
“Officials who use their public offices for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,” Jackson wrote in dissent. The law, as written, “does not pose a genuine threat to common gift-giving,” but “clearly covers the type of corrupt payment (although perhaps not quid pro quo).” [the mayor] “It was requested after the city contracts were sent to the concessionaire.”
The ruling could have a wide impact. About 20 million state and local officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.
Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials who “rewarded” them for steering contracts to donors.
Supreme Court justices have recently faced heavy criticism for accepting undisclosed gifts from wealthy patrons. Justice Clarence Thomas regularly took lavish vacations and private jet flights paid for by Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took a fishing trip to Alaska in 2008 aboard a private plane owned by Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire.
The Supreme Court has long held that criminal laws restricting “unlawful gratifications” to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific “official act,” not just because of the official's position.
The Indiana mayor was charged and convicted for accepting payment of $13,000 for his role in helping his sponsors obtain city contracts.
In 1986, Congress expanded the federal bribery law to cover officials of state or local agencies that receive federal funds. The measure made it a crime to “corruptly solicit or demand… or accept… anything of a value of $5,000 or more… with the intent to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction.”
Prosecutors said James Snyder was deep in debt and behind on his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Indiana, in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks and the mayor took charge of the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that was also having financial problems and designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks met all standards. He also arranged for the city to purchase an older truck that was on his lot.
Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them about his financial problems. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for open-ended consulting services.
An FBI investigation led to Snyder's indictment, conviction and 21-month prison sentence.
The former mayor argued that an after-the-fact gift should not be a crime, but lost before a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Chicago.
The high court agreed to hear his appeal in Snyder v. US because the appeals courts in Boston and New Orleans had limited the law only to bribery and not to tips paid later.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the scope of public corruption laws, often in unanimous rulings. The common theme is that the justices concluded that the prosecutions went beyond the law.
Last year, the court unanimously overturned the corruption convictions of two New York men who were former aides or donors to the then-governor. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. The court noted that one of the defendants convicted of receiving illicit payments did not work for the state during that time.
Four years ago, the justices unanimously overturned the convictions of two aides to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, who were accused of conspiring to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge leading into New York City. The court said they had been wrongly convicted of fraud because they had not sought money or property, which is a key element of a fraud charge.
In 2016, the court overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. Although the governor accepted $175,000 in gifts from a business developer, he took no official action to benefit the donor, the court said.
