The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that writing checks to politicians as thank-you payments for corrupt contracting decisions does not constitute bribery under federal law. The vote was 6 to 3, with the three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — dissenting.
“State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority. The law in question, he went on, “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, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
The decision is hardly a surprise given the Supreme Court has consistently narrowed the definition of corruption under Chief Justice John Roberts — even before conservatives built a supermajority. Still, the Snyder case was exceptionally brazen and unusually ridiculous — and justices chose to hear this case amid an unprecedented controversy over reports that revelations they have routinely accepted and failed to disclose luxury gifts.
The case revolves around the story of an Indiana mayor who helped steer a contract to a garbage truck company, which then paid the mayor $13,000 at his request, because he had fallen on hard times. James Snyder was twice convicted of bribery. His lawyers argued that was unfair — and that federal bribery law shouldn’t criminalize “gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take where the official did not agree to take those actions in exchange for payment.”
During oral arguments, the justices telegraphed how they would rule in the case, as they thoroughly trivialized the gratuity payment, comparing it to contextually different gifts as they feigned confusion about the overall meaning of political corruption. At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch compared the $13,000 gratuity to taking a teacher or cop to the Cheesecake Factory.
“How does this statute give fair notice to anyone in the world as to — and I hate to do it, but I’m going to — the difference between the Cheese Factory [sic]…” he said, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett offered, “Inn at Little Washington.”
“And the Inn at Little Washington. Thank you, thank you,” said Gorsuch. “How does anyone know?”
Kavanaugh, meanwhile, questioned whether “a $100 Starbucks gift certificate as a thank you to the city council-person for working on a new zoning reg” would qualify as corrupt under the federal bribery rule.
A lawyer for President Joe Biden’s Justice Department frequently pointed out that the federal bribery statute only concerned corrupt rewards of more than $5,000 for government officials — but that didn’t stop Barrett from comparing it to paying a professor for tutoring. “Trust me, tutoring is expensive,” she said.
It was a ridiculous performance and display from the justices, but it served a purpose. Now, delivering gratuities to politicians is legal; politicians can procure personal cash payments from companies after acting to their benefit.
Time to thank the Supreme Court.
