Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Quid pro quo now apparently required to convict on § 666 (Updated)
Posted in:
* Jason Meisner in April…
A government attorney faced tough questioning Monday from U.S. Supreme Court justices over concerns that the federal bribery statute often used to prosecute public officials, including a former Indiana mayor, is vague and potentially criminalizes innocuous gift-giving by people from all walks of life. […]
The high court’s decision to hear Snyder’s case has already had repercussions in Chicago. Since the Supreme Court’s announcement in December, Madigan’s trial was delayed from April 1 until October to allow time for the decision to come out and be digested before going forward.
In a parallel case, a different judge agreed, over the objection of prosecutors, to delay sentencings for the “ComEd Four,” a group of lobbyists and executives convicted of conspiring to bribe Madigan by showering his associates with do-nothing consulting jobs and other perks.
In Madigan’s case, prosecutors have noted that the 666 statute is charged in only five of the 23 counts of the racketeering indictment.
* The Sun-Times today…
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a crucial federal bribery law aimed at state and local officials does not also criminalize after-the-fact rewards known as “gratuities.”
The ruling in the appeal of former Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder could have a major impact on public corruption prosecutions in Chicago, including the cases of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. In fact, the Supreme Court accused prosecutors of trying to turn the law into “a vague and unfair trap for 19 million state and local officials.”
The high court’s decision to take up the Snyder case interrupted the momentum federal prosecutors here had built through a series of corruption trials in 2023. […]
The corruption conviction of Snyder gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to study a law known as the “federal program bribery” statute. It applies to any state or local government agent who “corruptly solicits … anything of value … intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business” worth $5,000 or more. […]
It’s involved in five of the counts in the separate case dealing with the four Madigan allies, who include former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore.
* Jon Seidel…
Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. https://t.co/9nogVj3v01
— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) June 26, 2024
* Tribune…
In the opinion, which has been highly anticipated in Chicago’s federal court, the justices sided 6-3 with the former mayor of Portage, Ind., James Snyder, who argued to the nation’s highest court that the anti-corruption law under which he was convicted is vague and could potentially criminalize innocent, everyday conduct. […]
“The Government’s so-called guidance would leave state and local officials entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under federal law, with the threat of up to 10 years in federal prison if they happen to guess wrong,” the opinion states. “That is not how federal criminal law works. And the Court has rejected the view that it should construe a criminal statute on the assumption that the Government will use it responsibly.”
The 47-page opinion also takes issue with the term “rewarded,” which it typically interpreted by prosecutors as a reward for a public official after an official act was taken. […]
Defense attorneys will likely request that certain counts be thrown out in light of the justices’ ruling on Wednesday, though prosecutors in the Madigan case have said they are willing to forgo any arguments to jurors that the benefits provided to Madigan were gratuities.
* The opinion…
The question in this case is whether §666 also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities—for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like—that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no. State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept. Section 666 does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, §666 leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials. […]
If the Government were correct that §666 also covered gratuities, Congress would have created an entirely inexplicable regime for state and local officials. For one, even though bribery has been treated as a far more serious offense, Congress would have authorized the same 10-year maximum sentences for (i) gratuities to state and local officials and (ii) bribes to state and local officials. See Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 405. In addition, Congress would have authorized punishing gratuities to state and local officials five times more severely than gratuities to federal officials—10 years for state and local officials compared to 2 years for federal officials. […]
The Government asks this Court to adopt an interpretation of §666 that would radically upend gratuities rules and turn §666 into a vague and unfair trap for 19 million state and local officials. We decline to do so. Section 666 is a vital statute, but its focus is targeted: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials, while allowing state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials. Within constitutional bounds, Congress can always change the law if it wishes to do so. But since 1986, it has not, presumably because Congress understands that state and local governments may and often do regulate gratuities to state and local officials. We reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
posted by Isabel Miller
Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 10:35 am
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Quid pro quo now apparently required to convict on § 666 (Updated)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like==
“The like” in this case being thirteen thousand dollars in cash. This majority loves delivering opinions on the cases not actually in front of them.
Comment by Roadrager Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 10:39 am
Image of Road Runner running through the tunnel painted on a boulder by Wile E. Coyote.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 10:44 am
Whenever you are reading a US Supreme Court decision on the issue of what and how much public bribery is legally acceptable, it’s important to realize you’re in a context where words have lost all rational meaning and the core question the majority is always asking itself is “what does the money want?”
They’ve been enervating American democracy with these cases since Buckley v. Valeo and when they look at the open ownership of American politicians by moneyed interests the conservative Justices like what they see.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 10:59 am
This one is a head scratcher. My understanding of the case in question is that the official got a substantial amount of money, not a commonplace gratuity.
So a public official can accept any amount of money for taking an official action so long as it happens after the fact? I don’t get it.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:01 am
So, if I’m an elected official and I could award a contract to a poor entity or a very rich one, why would I ever offer it to the poor person?
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:04 am
Did they think they were ruling on gratuities given to Supreme Court justices? Seems like it to me
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:07 am
A bad decision from the court. I doubt we see another corruption case from the feds unless it is a very blatant bribe. They could have issued a narrow decision on textual grounds, but instead they say that this is for states and localities to decide how to govern and enforce.
Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:12 am
Being extorted to hire political allies to no-show jobs and inflated legal billings is not a “commonplace gratuity” like “lunches, plaques, books, or framed photos”.
Comment by Grasshopper Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:16 am
Didn’t they get George Ryan on this very issue? George getting free meals and vacations from friends who had state contracts as I remember.
Comment by Long Time Independent Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:23 am
=I don’t get it=
Read the opinion - should surprise no one as this court has narrowly interpreted the expansive power of the Federal government - while reminding us that states (i.e. the ILGA) have strong regulatory power if they decide to exercise it …
“We decline to do so. Section 666 is a vital statute, but its focus is targeted: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials, while allowing state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials. Within constitutional bounds, Congress can always change the law if it wishes to do so. But since 1986, it has not, presumably because Congress understands that state and local governments may and often do regulate gratuities to state and local officials.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:26 am
@Lad…
Clarence is probably breathing easier…
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:29 am
=lunches, plaques, books, framed photos=
What about a crystal clock?
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:38 am
“So a public official can accept any amount of money for taking an official action so long as it happens after the fact? I don’t get it.”
No, you get it.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:42 am
So “no bribery, but you can wait til *after* they do what you want and *then* pay them.”
It’s almost like one of the justices is worried about accepting gifts from a billionaire after ruling in ways that benefited them…
*cough, cough*
Comment by ILLINI123 Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:44 am
Grasshopper, are ComEd or AT&T claiming they were being extorted?
Since both companies have plead guilty and entered into DPAs, would be real weird if in fact they were both victims in all of this.
Comment by Juice Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:50 am
@ Mr.JM
Do not forget to add the qualifier: that official must also openly insist that they never considered the giving of money to have been a corrupt act. Ignorance is now a formal excuse in public law.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 11:57 am
There is a joke about One Fair Wage in here somewhere, but I can’t seem to find it.
So if elected officials can receive “tips,” does that mean we can cap their current salaries?
Katy bar the door. There is now a new incentive to run for office in Illinois. All these perks and now tips on top. Life is good.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 12:08 pm
===and now tips on top===
We still have a gift ban here.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 12:10 pm
“Within constitutional bounds, Congress can always change the law if it wishes to do so. But since 1986, it has not, presumably because Congress understands that state and local governments may and often do regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
Congress changed this law since 1986 because no one ever thought that the law was a comically limited as these GOP justice now assert.
It’s the same play that they executed when gutting the voting rights act.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 12:13 pm
I hate living in the Roberts Court’s world
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 12:39 pm
“Congress can always change the law if it wishes to do so. But since 1986, it has not, presumably because [it never considered the possibility that the type of blatantly corrupt behavior manifest in this case wasn’t already covered by the law.]”
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 12:55 pm
Too bad there are not any Chicago natives on the Supreme Court. These people do not get it. At this rate we are moving backwards on political corruption in Illinois. Maybe we should just let the Outfit re-form and run Chicago again. Sad day.
Comment by Payback Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 12:57 pm
100% correct ruling. The Court got one right this time.
Comment by Matty Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 2:29 pm
Q. What are the legal differences between gratuities, bribes, and gifts in Illinois?
A. Is it the spelling?
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 2:39 pm
As it’s explained in the opinion, the statue applies to bribes or gratuities valued at more than $5,000. So Kavanaugh was being deliberately hyperbolic in his opinion & ignoring the plain text of the statute in his own opinion. But what kind of ethical gratuities are public officials getting that are valued at more than $5,000?
That being said, the simplest reaction to this ruling would be for states to ban all payments, gifts, whatever you want to call it between businesses with government contracts or any regulated entity and public officials.
Comment by MyTwoCents Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 3:45 pm