Supreme Court Rules Gratuity Insufficient For Conviction Under Federal Bribery Law

On June 26, 2024, a 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the scope of federal bribery law by ruling that 18 U.S.C. § 666 does not cover gratuities provided to officials for past acts. The Court held that Section 666, which outlaws bribery of state and local officials when federal funds are involved, does not extend to “gratuities” that follow an official act, in large part because regulation of such gifts is a matter of state and local law.

The case before the Court, Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108 (2024), involved a former Indiana mayor who accepted $13,000 from a garbage truck company after it was awarded city contracts. The Court overturned the mayor’s 2021 bribery conviction, thus resolving a circuit split on the scope of Section 666 by narrowly limiting the statute to quid-pro-quo bribery only.

The Majority’s “Bedrock Federalism Principles” Framework

Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh contended that including gratuities under Section 666 would “unfair[ly] trap” state and local officials who complied with gratuities rules established by their state and local governments, but still could be federally prosecuted, and face significant prison sentences, for accepting “a thing of value in connection with an official act.” The majority expressed concern that the statute could turn into a federal crime gift giving that was considered innocent under state and local rules. Justice Kavanaugh argued that the regulation of gratuities should be decided by state and local governments so as not to “infringe on bedrock federalism principles.”

The Dissent’s Reading of the Law

A dissenting opinion authored by Justice Jackson pushed back on the majority’s reliance on “federalism principles.” Justice Jackson pointed instead to the plain text of the statute, in which “[t]he word ‘rewarded’ means to have been given a reward for some action taken” and thus concluded that “gratuities are plainly covered”. Further, Justice Jackson looked to congressional intent, noting that “Section 666’s regulation of state, local, and tribal governments reflects Congress’s express choice to reach those and other entities receiving federal funds.” The dissenting opinion also noted that historical federal prosecutions of state and local officials under Section 666 for accepting gratuities have involved gifts of significant value, and did “not remotely resemble the holiday tips, gift baskets, and sweatshirts around which the majority crafts its decision.”

Key Takeaway – The Decision Narrows Federal Government Authority to Prosecute Corruption by Local Officials

By carving out rewards, or gratuities, offered and accepted after an official act, the Supreme Court has substantially narrowed the scope of Section 666. As a result, the federal government will have less authority to prosecute corruption by state and local officials under this provision. This ruling opens the door to potential loopholes for what used to be considered federal bribery. For example, state and local officials may intentionally attempt to avoid federal prosecution by delaying receipt of illicit payments until after an official act has occurred in order to characterize the payment as “gratuity” permissible under state or local law, under the rationale of Snyder. It is important, however, to be mindful that gratuties laws in many states and localities (including statutes, regulations, and contracts clauses) may prohibit such conduct.

This decision is the latest in a series of cases in which the Supreme Court has overturned public corruption convictions of government officials and narrowed the scope of the federal bribery and corruption statutes. For example, in 2016 the Court overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who had been convicted of bribery for receiving gifts in return for setting up meetings for a Virginia businessman. Similarly, in 2020 a unanimous Court overturned the convictions of two aides to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who participated in the “Bridgegate” scandal. While the facts and legal analysis involved in all of these cases differ, they indicate a trend in which the Supreme Court favors a narrow interpretation of federal public-corruption laws.