Bribes given before official acts cannot be criminalized under the law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that state and local governments already have laws against accepting gratuities for official acts and noted many officials have other jobs with blurred lines between bribes and commonplace gifts.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, stating officials who use public positions for private gain threaten government institutions' integrity.
Supreme Court narrowed scope of federal public corruption law in a 6-3 decision on June 26, 2024.
The Supreme Court made a controversial ruling on June 26, 2024, that narrowed the scope of federal public corruption law. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that bribes given before an official act cannot be criminalized under the law. This decision overturned the conviction of former Indiana mayor James Snyder who was found to have taken $13,000 from a trucking company after steering about $1 million worth of city contracts to them.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, argued that state and local governments already have laws against accepting gratuities for official acts. He also noted that many state and local officials have other jobs and the lines between bribes and commonplace gifts are not always clear. The conservative justices redefined 'gratuities' as commonplace and innocuous gifts like holiday tips or plaques.
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of government institutions and undermine Congress' ability to protect citizens from corruption. She argued that Snyder's 'absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one that only today's court could love.'
The decision continues a pattern in recent years of the Supreme Court restricting the government's ability to use broad federal laws to prosecute public corruption cases. The justices also overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in 2016 and sharply curbed prosecutors' use of an anti-fraud law in the case of ex-Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling in 2010.
The ruling comes as the Supreme Court itself has faced sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, leading the high court to adopt its first code of ethics, though it lacks an enforcement mechanism.
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal law does not apply to gifts and payments meant to reward actions taken by state and local officials after the fact.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that federal prosecutors’ interpretation of the law created traps for public officials, leaving them to guess what gifts were allowed.
Justice Jackson wrote that officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of important institutions.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 split decision, ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not prohibit state and local officials from accepting ‘gratuities’ after they have performed official acts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that federal prosecutors’ interpretation of the law created traps for public officials, leaving them to guess what gifts were allowed.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented against a ruling weakening a federal statute that prevented public officials from receiving bribes in the form of gratuities.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued for a plain text reading of the statute which targeted officials who corruptly received bribes and gratuities intending to be influenced or rewarded.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of important institutions.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal law does not apply to gifts and payments meant to reward actions taken by state and local officials after the fact.
The Court's ruling was criticized by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as an absurd and atextual reading of the statute that ignored its plain text.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 split decision, ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not prohibit state and local officials from accepting ‘gratuities’ after they have performed official acts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the conservative justices redefined ‘gratuities’ as commonplace and innocuous gifts like holiday tips or plaques. They argued that state and local governments already have laws against accepting gratuities for official acts, making the federal statute an affront to federalism.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of government institutions and undermine Congress’ ability to protect citizens from corruption.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. United States, which weakened anti-bribery laws by distinguishing between bribes and gratuities. The authors, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, criticize the conservative majority on the court for redefining corruption and undermining Congress's intent to protect Americans from corrupt conduct. They also imply that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have benefited from similar 'gratuities' in their own positions. However, by only providing criticism without disclosing sources or providing direct quotes to support the claims made about the justices, this falls short of proving deception.
The conservative supermajority distinguished between bribes you can agree to before you do someone a favor (illegal) and gifts you accept quietly after (just fine).
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(5%)
The authors express their opinion that the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. United States allows for a form of bribery that is done with a wink rather than a handshake. They also imply that Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito have engaged in such corrupt acts by accepting lavish gifts after ruling for billionaires.
It's bad whether some mayor in Indiana is doing it, and it's bad when Supreme Court justices do it.
She is eviscerating the majority’s vision of a good government, where public servants can get soft kickbacks for their official acts and that’s just fine.
They argue that they didn’t do anything in exchange for lavish gifts. They just happened to be handed amazing gifts after ruling for billionaires over and over again.
The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor, James Snyder.
The high court’s decision found that bribes given before an official act cannot be criminalized, only rewards handed out after.
Snyder was elected mayor of Portage, Indiana, in 2011 and was removed from office when he was first convicted in 2019. He maintains his innocence and says the money he received was payment for consulting work.
The Justice Department argued that the law is meant to cover corruptly given gifts as rewards for favored treatment.
Accuracy
Snyder was convicted of taking $13,000 from a trucking company after prosecutors said he steered about $1 million worth of city contracts to the company.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that Snyder’s interpretation of the statute ignores its intended purpose to root out public corruption.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains a few informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. It also uses inflammatory rhetoric by mentioning the Supreme Court's pattern of restricting the government's ability to prosecute public corruption cases.
. . . the latest in a series of decisions narrowing the scope of federal public corruption law.
The high court sided with James Snyder, a Republican...
The decision comes as the Supreme Court itself has faced sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices...
Kavanaugh, writing for the high court majority, disagreed...
