Supreme Court Narrows Interpretation of Federal Corruption Statute – June 29, 2016
Pepper Hamilton
Description
Court, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “we reject the Government’s reading of §201(a)
(3) and adopt a more bounded interpretation of ‘official act.’ Under that interpretation,
setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not,
standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act.’” No. 15-474, slip op. at 14. The Supreme
Court held that such actions could be considered by a jury as evidence that the official in
fact had agreed to take official action or agreed to exert pressure on or advise another
official to take official action.
However, those acts without more are not “official acts” for purposes of the federal corruption statutes. Id. at 20-22. The Supreme Court also addressed the definition of the “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” on which a public official makes a decision or takes an action under § 201(a)(3).
The Supreme Court held that that definition had been met in this case, as described by the Fourth Circuit. However, the Court rejected as overly general the district court’s conclusion that “Virginia business and economic development” was the “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” at issue in the case. The Supreme Court held that the question or matter must be “more specific and focused than a broad policy objective” and “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power.
. . .” Id.
at 21, 26. Finally, the Supreme Court held that an overly broad construction of the federal corruption statute would be impermissibly vague and would potentially chill the interactions between public officials and their constituents. Id. at 22-23.
The Supreme Court’s decision halts the government’s trend to broadly interpret the federal corruption statutes in its aggressive prosecution of politicians and narrows the government’s discretion in prosecuting future federal corruption cases. The Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of an “official act” under the statute may also impact recent convictions of politicians for public corruption, including the convictions of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and former State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, both of which are currently on appeal. Berwyn | Boston | Detroit | Harrisburg | Los Angeles | New York | Orange County | Philadelphia | Pittsburgh | Princeton Silicon Valley | Washington | Wilmington pepper.law .
However, those acts without more are not “official acts” for purposes of the federal corruption statutes. Id. at 20-22. The Supreme Court also addressed the definition of the “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” on which a public official makes a decision or takes an action under § 201(a)(3).
The Supreme Court held that that definition had been met in this case, as described by the Fourth Circuit. However, the Court rejected as overly general the district court’s conclusion that “Virginia business and economic development” was the “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” at issue in the case. The Supreme Court held that the question or matter must be “more specific and focused than a broad policy objective” and “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power.
. . .” Id.
at 21, 26. Finally, the Supreme Court held that an overly broad construction of the federal corruption statute would be impermissibly vague and would potentially chill the interactions between public officials and their constituents. Id. at 22-23.
The Supreme Court’s decision halts the government’s trend to broadly interpret the federal corruption statutes in its aggressive prosecution of politicians and narrows the government’s discretion in prosecuting future federal corruption cases. The Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of an “official act” under the statute may also impact recent convictions of politicians for public corruption, including the convictions of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and former State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, both of which are currently on appeal. Berwyn | Boston | Detroit | Harrisburg | Los Angeles | New York | Orange County | Philadelphia | Pittsburgh | Princeton Silicon Valley | Washington | Wilmington pepper.law .
