WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court weakened a federal anti-bribery law on Wednesday, overturning an Indiana mayor’s conviction for accepting a $13,000 reward from a trucking company that had a contract with the city of Portage.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court ruled that the federal law governing bribes for state or local officials applies only to payments made or promised before an official act is taken — not to those made after an official act, intended as a reward, or “gratuity.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the court's opinion, which Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred and the other four conservative appointed justices joined.
“The question in this case is whether Section 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 Donald Trump appointee wrote. “The answer is no.”
In the majority’s view, state and local governments already regulate what gifts officials can accept. Further, in 1986 Congress specifically nixed a portion of the original 1984 statute that extended a similar gratuities prohibition for federal officials to state and local officials.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, dissented. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.
“Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s court could love,” Jackson wrote in her dissent — seeming to allude to recent controversies regarding lavish gifts totaling over $4 million that Justice Clarence Thomas has received from powerful conservatives like real estate mogul Harlan Crow.
Justice Samuel Alito — who earlier this month disclosed more than $170,095 in gifts from the past 20 years — has also come under scrutiny for accepting private flights from wealthy GOP donor Robin Arkley and hedge fund manager Paul Singer. Those were worth $150,000 in 2008.
In his opinion, Kavanaugh added that beyond the text of the 1986 law, the ruling was based on three grounds: statutory punishments, federalism and fair notice.
He explained that Congress separated bribery and gratuity into two distinct provisions of the statute that governs bribes to federal officials, naming two different criminal punishments: up to 15 years in prison for bribery and up to two years for gratuity.
If the court accepted the government’s argument that Section 666 covered gratuities, Kavanaugh said, that would subject state and local officials to a maximum of 10 years for both bribes and gratuities, making the punishment five times more severe.
Additionally, were the court to expand the statute, it would subject the “army of 19 million” state and local officials to potential criminal liability without clear guidelines as to what gifts count as illegal gratuities, he said.
Jackson rejected the majority’s contention that expanding Section 666 to apply to state and local officials would “significantly infringe on bedrock federalists principles.”
“The court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog,” Jackson wrote. “Section 666’s regulation of state, local and tribal governments reflects Congress’s express choice to reach those and other entities receiving federal funds.”
In the underlying case, James Snyder claimed he was wrongfully prosecuted for an illegal gratuity for accepting a check from Great Lakes Peterbilt, a trucking company. Federal law prohibits quid pro quo bribery and gifts of over $5,000 intended to influence a public official’s actions — but Snyder said the gift was neither, and was meant only to show the company's appreciation for the mayor choosing the its trucks for Portage, Indiana’s contracts.
Randy Reeder, a close friend of Snyder’s, was appointed to oversee the city’s purchase of new garbage trucks. Prosecutors claimed Reeder purposefully tailored the contract requirements for Great Lakes Peterbilt.
During another contracting bid, Reeder bought a used 2012 truck that Great Lakes Peterbilt was having trouble selling.
In total, Great Lakes Peterbilt received $1.125 million from Portage for its trucks.
The company sent Synder a $13,000 check after its second contract was issued. Synder, who was experiencing financial difficulties at the time, claimed the company was paying him for consulting fees, but was unable to provide documentation of a consulting agreement.
Jurors convicted the ex-mayor on two counts of corruptly taking money to influence city business.
At the Supreme Court in April, Snyder urged the justices to reverse his convictions, arguing the government was criminalizing gift-giving. The government said federal law only criminalized actions taken with the intent of being rewarded and urged the court to rule in favor of protecting citizens from corruption, instead of rewards for officials.
The high court’s decision reversed the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the government and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Follow @Ryan_Knappy
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
