A federal statute criminalizes a local public official dealing with federal money whenever he or she
corruptly . . . accepts . . . anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of [the governmental agency for which he or she works] involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more.
18 U.S.C. Section 666(a)(1)(B). In Snyder v. United States, decided on June 26, 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 that the statute only outlaws the outright bribery of local officials. According to the Court, the statute does not outlaw free gifts, or “gratuities” to public officials, no matter how large those “gratuities” may be. The Court explained that this limitation of the statute’s scope was necessary to protect public officials who innocently accept “gifts” from criminal prosecution. Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan angrily dissented, contending that public officials who “corruptly” accept any “reward” for carrying out their public duties should be vigorously prosecuted under that statute.
Comment: The Court’s Opinion, written by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Thomas, Barrett, and Gorsuch[1], is entirely disingenuous. Section 666 does not use either the words “bribery” or “gratuity” to define its reach.[2] Read in the language the statute actually invokes, the statute criminalizes public officials who “accept” “corrupt” “rewards” for their ostensibly “public” services. In other words, the statute outlaws the acceptance of anything of value as a “reward” “given in return for . . . evil done or received.”[3]
In the case under consideration, a local contractor had won a bid for a lucrative contract from Mr. Snyder’s city, where he was the mayor. According to the federal prosecutor in his case, Mr. Snyder then sought and accepted a $15,000 payment from the contractor for manipulating the city’s bidding process to favor that particular contractor. If those charges by the prosecutor were true, and Mr. Snyder was smart enough to deny them, then Mr. Snyder was not the innocent recipient of an innocent “gratuity” or “gift.”[4] Most rational jurors can tell the difference between an innocent “gift” and a “corrupt” “reward.” According to the prosecutor’s charges, and the jury’s ultimate verdict sustaining those charges, Mr. Snyder did something far worse, and far more damaging to the taxpaying public, than merely accepting an innocent “gift” at a retirement party. The Court’s majority nevertheless let him off. The day of this Supreme Court decision was not a good day for law-and-order.
Dan Rhea
[1] Justice Gorsuch separately summarized the majority opinion as a traditional application of the common law’s “rule of lenity,” which encourages the strict construction of criminal statutes to promote personal freedom.
[2] The Code book’s heading for Section 666 does use the word “bribery.”
[3] See “reward,” Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/reward. Accessed 7/24/2014. See also “corrupt,” Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/corrupt. Accessed 7/24/2024.
[4] See “gratuity,” Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/gratuity. Accessed 7/24/2024.
RECENT RULINGS 