The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a crucial federal corruption law targeting state and local officials does not also criminalize after-the-fact rewards known as “tips.”

Appeal ruling against former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder could have major impact on public corruption prosecutions in Chicago, including the former House Speaker’s cases of Illinois, Michael Madigan. In fact, the Supreme Court accused prosecutors of trying to turn the law into “a vague and unfair trap for 19 million state and local employees.”

The high court’s decision to take up Snyder’s case halted the momentum that federal prosecutors had built here through a series of corruption trials in 2023. Not only were a group of former Madigan allies expected to be sentenced in January for a nearly decade-long scheme to bribe the ex-president, but Madigan was scheduled to go to trial this spring.

Instead, Madigan’s trial is now scheduled for October and sentencing hearings for Madigan’s four allies have been suspended.

Snyder’s bribery conviction gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to consider a law known as the “Federal Programs Corruption Act.” It applies to any state or local government official who “corruptly solicits…anything of value…with the intent to be influenced or rewarded in carrying out business” worth $5,000 or more.

Madigan’s lawyers noted that seven of the 23 counts he faces in his indictment are related to the law in question.
She is implicated in five of the counts in the separate case involving Madigan’s four allies, including former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore.

The central question before the court was whether, in addition to bribery, the law also criminalises so-called “gratuity”. A gratuity is a reward paid corruptly – but without consideration – for an official act that has usually already taken place.

Snyder accepted $13,000 from a trucking company after helping secure contracts with his city in favor of the company. A jury later convicted him of “corrupt solicitation.” Snyder’s lawyers say he only contacted the company for money “after Portage awarded the contracts,” and therefore there was no quid pro quo.

During oral arguments in April, Supreme Court justices questioned a government lawyer about the definition of a key word in the law: “corruption.”

“What is harmless and what is not?” » asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “And, just as importantly, how is the official supposed to know in advance, ‘Oh, the $100 gift certificate is OK, but the larger one is not?’

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked at one point, “Is this a sin?” Are we now talking about something that, you know, would be a venial sin? Or does it have to be a mortal?

Deputy Solicitor General Colleen Sinzdak repeatedly told the justices that “corruption” refers to “awareness of wrongdoing.” Gorsuch attempted to clarify that a defendant must know that what he is doing is “illegal,” but Sinzdak further emphasized: “or illicit.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a crucial federal corruption law targeting state and local officials does not also criminalize after-the-fact rewards known as “tips.”

Appeal ruling against former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder could have major impact on public corruption prosecutions in Chicago, including the former House Speaker’s cases of Illinois, Michael Madigan. In fact, the Supreme Court accused prosecutors of trying to turn the law into “a vague and unfair trap for 19 million state and local employees.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up Snyder’s case halted the momentum that federal prosecutors had built during a series of corruption trials in 2023. Not only were a group of former Madigan allies expected to be convicted in January for a nearly decade-long scheme to corrupt the former House speaker, but Madigan was scheduled to stand trial this spring.

Instead, Madigan’s trial is now scheduled for October and sentencing hearings for Madigan’s four allies have been suspended.

Snyder’s bribery conviction gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to consider a law known as the “Federal Programs Corruption Act.” It applies to any state or local government official who “corruptly solicits…anything of value…with the intent to be influenced or rewarded in carrying out business” worth $5,000 or more.

Madigan’s lawyers noted that seven of the 23 counts he faces in his indictment are related to the law in question.
She is implicated in five of the counts in the separate case involving Madigan’s four allies, including former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore.

The central question before the court was whether, in addition to bribery, the law also criminalized so-called “tipping.” A gratuity is a reward paid corruptly – but without consideration – for an official act that has usually already taken place.

Snyder accepted $13,000 from a trucking company after helping secure contracts with his city in favor of the company. A jury later convicted him of “corrupt solicitation.” Snyder’s lawyers say he only contacted the company for money “after Portage awarded the contracts,” and therefore there was no quid pro quo.

During oral arguments in April, the Supreme Court justices questioned a government lawyer about the definition of a key word in the law: “corruptly.”

“What is harmless and what is not?” » asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “And, just as importantly, how is the official supposed to know in advance, ‘Oh, the $100 gift certificate is OK, but the larger one is not?’

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked at one point, “Is this a sin?” Are we now talking about something that, you know, would be a venial sin? Or does it have to be a mortal?

Deputy Solicitor General Colleen Sinzdak repeatedly told the justices that “corruption” refers to “awareness of wrongdoing.” Gorsuch attempted to clarify that a defendant must know that what he is doing is “illegal,” but Sinzdak further emphasized: “or illicit.”