Indeed, if there’s one area of the law where the justices appear to be in ideological lockstep, it’s in making it harder for federal prosecutors to bring corruption charges against public officials and their private backers. Just last term, the liberal and conservative justices joined forces to quash two cases in New York that involved novel interpretations of federal bribery laws to tackle more insidious forms of corruption.
To that end, Snyder’s lawyers emphasized similar themes in the court’s previous anti-anti-corruption rulings. “Criminal laws must give ‘fair notice’ to avoid the risk of ‘arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,’” they told the justices, quoting from the McDonnell ruling. “Yet, as above, the breadth of conduct potentially meeting the government’s definition of a gratuity is sweeping. As this case illustrates, any time a public servant accepts private employment (think: every ex-state legislator turned lobbyist), federal prosecutors might recast those payments as gratuities for actions taken in office.”
The Justice Department, for its part, noted that the federal government has a strong interest in ensuring that state and local officials are properly spending government funds since federal funds form a significant portion of many state and local budgets. It also argued that the facts surrounding Snyder’s case made it a poor option for consideration. At least four of the justices disagreed, however, and now Americans will learn later this term when and how they can reward their elected officials with cash and gifts for doing things they like.