U.S. Supreme Court Narrows Federal Anti-Bribery Statute to Permit Gratuities

Included in the end-of-session deluge of impactful U.S. Supreme Court decisions was a 16-page opinion in Snyder v U.S., ruling that a federal anti-bribery statute does not prohibit “gratuities” for state and local officials. The underlying case involves a criminal defendant, Jim Snyder, who was the mayor of Portage, Indiana. Mayor Snyder’s administration oversaw the purchase of garbage trucks through a procurement process that was run by Snyder’s longtime friend. The process was tailored to be very friendly to the company that ultimately won the bid, Great Lakes Peterbilt. A year after the $1.1M purchase of five garbage trucks, Great Lakes Peterbilt gave Snyder a check for $13,000. Prosecutors brought charges under 18 U.S.C. §666, and Snyder was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity. Snyder appealed, arguing that §666 only criminalizes bribes, not gratuities. The conviction was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, finding that 18 U.S.C. §666 prohibits bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime to accept gratuities for their past acts. The Court’s opinion resolved a split between the circuit courts over the scope of activities prohibited by §666.

SCOTUS Argument and Review 

Federal law prohibits federal officials from accepting anything of value for any official act (this is codified at 18 U.S.C. §201). There are two relevant sections for the federal provision: §201(b), which prohibits bribes and requires that the giver or receiver act “corruptly,” and §201(c), which prohibits gratuities because of official acts (without a requirement that the giver or receiver act “corruptly”). The statute at issue in this case, 18 U.S.C. §666, was enacted to extend the prohibition on bribes and gratuities to most state and local officials. Section 666(a)(1)(B) makes it a crime for state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept anything of value intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any official business or transaction worth $5,000 or more. The maximum punishment is ten years in prison.  

The Court found that the text of § 666 was too vague and did not provide sufficient guidance as to what state and local officials are allowed to accept. The majority opinion reviewed §§201(b) and 201(c) to analyze where §666 should follow. The Court found that §666 was more like 18 USC 201(b), which prohibits bribes, as §201(b) includes the requirement of a “corrupt state of mind.” The Court also pointed to a 1999 decision, U.S. v. Sun Diamond Growers of California, which held that bribery and gratuities are two separate crimes with two different sets of elements, which have different punishments to reflect their relative seriousness. The majority opinion focused on the inclusion of the term “corruptly” in the text of § 666, which they stated signals that §666 is a bribery statute not intended to extend to gratuities. 

Ultimately, the Court ruled that “although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666.” The Court was hesitant to extend the law and potentially subject state and local officials to new regulations; Congress, the majority opinion stated, “does not lightly override state and local governments on such core matters” of state and local governance. 

How Will Snyder Affect Other Laws?

It’s important to note that this ruling applies only to §666, which is a federal law, and that it narrows the scope of §666 to specifically prohibit quid pro quo acts of bribery for state and local officials. Now, when federal prosecutors attempt to bring charges against state and local public officials under §666, they will have to show that there was a “corrupt” intent before the gratuity was given. This may limit federal prosecutors’ ability to prosecute state and local officials for acts that used to be considered bribery under federal law. Snyder is another in a string of recent Supreme Court decisions that have restricted the federal government’s ability to prosecute corruption, including McDonnell v. United States in 2016 (overturning former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell’s corruption charges) and Kelly v. United States in 2020 (overturning charges related to the “Bridgegate” scandal in New Jersey). 

Of note, the Court did not specifically define “corruptly” as used in §666 in its ruling. Attorneys for Snyder had argued that “corruptly” should be narrowly defined as a specific intent to violate a law, but the majority did not go this far. The Snyder decision does not permit all gratuities but rather draws a line between what is a corrupt payment and what is a gratuity. By not defining “corruptly” the ruling may invite challenges to or narrowing of other federal bribery laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which prohibits payments to foreign officials for the purpose of corruptly influencing those officials. 

While the majority in Snyder specifically noted that §666 “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials,” the ruling may affect the outcome of local corruption cases, notably ongoing cases in Illinois. Four Commonwealth Edison officials were convicted of conspiring to bribe former House Speaker Mike Madigan in 2023; their sentencing hearing was suspended pending the outcome of Snyder v. U.S., and Madigan’s separate criminal trial was similarly delayed until October 2024. 

Several states already specifically regulate gratuities, including Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wyoming. The effect of the Snyder ruling remains to be seen at the state and local levels. 

Need Compliance Help? Get In Touch!

Keeping up with rules, deadlines, and often confusing requirements is a daunting prospect for teams of all sizes. Let us manage your federal, state, and local registration and reporting responsibilities, or manage your Campaign Finance program. Read more about our Compliance Services here, or get in touch here.