One of the last decisions the U.S. Supreme Court handed down before the justices recessed until October has a lot of people wondering just what constitutes bribery under the law. What does the 6-3 ruling mean for federal anti-corruption laws?
The case that made its way up to the high court was that of an Indiana mayor convicted of multiple offenses, including bribery, and removed from office. He had accepted $13,000 from a trucking company to which he had steered about $1 million worth of contracts in his private-sector consulting work.
When is someone acting “corruptly?
The former mayor claimed that the money he was paid was a “gratuity” rather than a bribe because he didn’t get the contracts awarded to the company as a quid pro quo for their payment to him.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, “Some gratuities can be problematic. Others are commonplace and might be innocuous. The lines aren’t always clear, especially since many state and local officials have other jobs.”
The federal statute at the center of the case prohibits local officials from “corruptly” accepting anything valued at over $5,000. That leaves some room for interpretation.
The conservative majority determined that the former mayor hadn’t acted corruptly in accepting the money. They did acknowledge that gifts and gratuities could still be considered illegal under other state and federal laws.
While some prosecutors have expressed concern that the ruling weakens federal anti-corruption laws, it likely has created even more uncertainty and confusion around them. That’s why it’s crucial that those under investigation for or already charged with bribery get experienced legal guidance to protect their rights.