The Supreme Court’s Approach to Public Corruption Cases
Eight years ago, the Supreme Court found itself at a crossroads regarding the interpretation of public corruption laws. This came before the public became aware of luxury travel and extravagant gifts received by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. At that time, the court deliberated on the case of a politician prosecuted for receiving similar benefits, ultimately leading to the dismissal of his conviction. Since then, the court has overturned four additional convictions in public corruption cases.
In all five rulings, the court conveyed a crucial message: “federal law must be interpreted so as not to cover behavior that looks, to any reasonable observer, sketchy as hell,” as articulated by Josh Chafetz, a distinguished law professor at Georgetown University. In his upcoming article, “Corruption and the Supreme Court,” which is set to be published next year in The Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, he elaborates on the implications of these decisions.
Chafetz identifies two core takeaways from these rulings. The first is straightforward: “the justices keep letting crooked politicians off the hook.” The second, more nuanced point, suggests that the court seems to imply that “nonjudicial politics is pervasively shot through with tawdriness.” This assertion may serve as an effort to elevate the image of the judiciary by contrasting it with the perceived moral shortcomings of political figures.
It’s important to note that four of these decisions were unanimous, reflecting a shared concern among justices about the potential for serious federal charges to be levied based on vaguely defined statutes. For example, in June, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing on behalf of six justices, argued that criminalizing the acceptance of after-the-fact gratuities by politicians could establish “a vague and unfair trap for 19 million state and local officials.”
The first significant case arose in 2016, involving Bob McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia. McDonnell had been convicted in 2014 for accepting a variety of lavish gifts, which included travel on a private jet, a Rolex watch, the use of a vacation home, and even a Ferrari, along with considerable loans from a business executive. This executive was seeking to have his company’s nutritional supplements tested by a state university, raising questions about the intersection of personal gain and public duty.
