Before they recessed for the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) handed down a number of long-anticipated decisions. One decision in June may not have been one of the more widely covered or controversial ones, but it could impact those facing federal bribery charges.
The decision addresses issues like what it means to “corruptly” accept something of value and the difference between a gratuity and a bribe. Let’s take a brief look at the case that led to that 6-3 decision along familiar ideological lines.
The case of a former mayor and a trucking company
The case that was appealed up the high court involved the now-former mayor of a small midwestern town who was convicted of bribery. He had accepted $13,000 as what he called a “gratuity” for helping the company secure contracts valued at approximately $1 million to supply garbage trucks for the city.
According to the federal anti-bribery statute (Section 666), state and local officials are prohibited from “corruptly” accepting or soliciting anything valued at more than $5,000. The defendant, who was removed from political office, argued that he helped the company get these contracts as part of his private-sector consultancy job and not as mayor. Further, he said that he received the money after the contracts were secured as a gratuity – not as a quid pro quo, which is the basis for a bribe.
The majority and minority opinions
The six justices who agreed with the former mayor’s characterization of the payment. In the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanagh noted that states and localities already have laws regarding the acceptance of gifts and gratuities by officials and that the federal statute “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.” The decision doesn’t protect the former mayor from facing non-federal charges.
In writing the minority dissent, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the conclusion that the federal statute doesn’t apply to state or local officials. She said it prohibits “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded…[which] easily covers the concept of gratuities paid to corrupt officials after the fact — no upfront agreement necessary.”
Clearly, there’s room for interpretation of the law. What’s most important to remember is that bribery is a serious offense at any level. It’s wise to seek legal guidance when there’s any question about whether something could be potentially be viewed as a bribe punishable at the state and/or local level.