~ This Article has been written by Team Writ Review.
In Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. __ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. §666, which criminalizes state and local officials’ “corrupt” solicitation, acceptance, or agreement to accept “anything of value” intending to be influenced or rewarded for an official act, applies only to bribes and not to gratuities given for past actions.
Facts of the Case
The Court’s opinion clarified the distinction between bribes and gratuities under federal and state law. Bribes are payments made or promised before an official act to influence it, while gratuities are rewards given after an official act as a token of appreciation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that while bribes are considered inherently corrupt and illegal under American law, the treatment of gratuities is more nuanced, with some being harmless and others raising ethical concerns.
Under 18 U.S.C. §201(b), federal officials can receive up to 15 years in prison for accepting a bribe, while §201(c) limits the sentence to 2 years for accepting a prohibited gratuity. The statute in question, 18 U.S.C. §666, originally enacted in 1984, extended the prohibition on gratuities to most state and local officials. However, Congress amended §666 two years later to avoid unintended applications to standard business practices.
The current version of §666 mirrors the bribery provision for federal officials (§201(b)), making it illegal for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” with the intent to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any official business or transaction valued at $5,000 or more.
The case concerned James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. In 2013, Portage awarded two contracts to Great Lakes Peterbilt, a local truck company, and purchased five trash trucks for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt paid Snyder $13,000. The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected the payment was a gratuity for the contracts, while Snyder claimed it was for consulting services. Snyder was convicted by a federal jury for accepting an illegal gratuity under §666(a)(1)(B) and sentenced to 1 year and 9 months in prison. Snyder appealed, arguing that §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction by a 6-3 vote, concluding that §666 criminalizes bribes but not gratuities for past actions.
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that §666 aligns with §201(b), the federal bribery statute. Therefore, a state or local official violates §666 only when accepting an up-front payment for a future official act or agreeing to a reward for a future act. However, accepting a gratuity after an official act does not violate §666, though it may be unethical or illegal under other laws.
The majority identified six factors supporting the conclusion that §666 is a bribery statute, not a gratuities statute: text, statutory history, structure, punishments, federalism, and fair notice. The statutory text, particularly the term “corruptly,” signals that §666 is intended as a bribery statute.
Justice Kavanaugh also emphasized that §666 originally borrowed language from the federal gratuities statute (§201(c)), but Congress amended it to follow the federal bribery statute (§201(b)). This change in 1986 reflects Congress’s intent to distinguish between bribery and gratuities.
The Court’s reasoning also considered federalism principles, noting that interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would impose a new regulatory regime on state and local officials, potentially conflicting with local rules.
Lastly, the majority dismissed the Government’s argument that including the word “rewarded” in §666 meant it covered both bribes and gratuities. Justice Kavanaugh explained that the term “corruptly” in §666 clarifies that it is a bribery statute.