Snyder v. United States (Linking to the dissent; scroll up for the main opinion.)
Snyder, a mayor, steered $1.25 million dollars of business to a particular company.
Soon after, Snyder (still mayor) went to the company and said, “I need money.” Company gave him $13,000 for, as the company’s controller testified, “an inside track”. When caught, Snyder claimed this was payment for consulting work, but was unable to produce anything like a contract, work product, or people in the company who received the services.
These facts are not in dispute.
He was convicted under a statute that criminalizes “corruptly” soliciting cash, “intending to be influenced or rewarded.”
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority just said he was wrongly convicted because:
- This was a “gratuity” – like tipping a waiter or giving your mail carrier a fruitcake on Christmas.
- A “gratuity” is a different thing than a “reward”. Specifically, a “reward” requires an agreement beforehand.
- The fact that Snyder’s conduct was clearly corrupt as fuck (excuse me, I mean “had consciousness of wrongdoing” or “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil”) is not relevant. That only applies to before-the-fact bribes, not after-the-fact rewards, er, I mean gratuities.
- Therefore, upholding Snyder's conviction could lead to your mail carrier getting 1 year, 9 months in federal prison (what Snyder got) for accepting that fruitcake he didn’t even want. Slippery slope. (That there have been no examples at all close to that in the 38 years since the law was passed is not relevant.)
The Supreme Court is recently on a "history and tradition" kick. What matters is less the text of the law (unless that's the more convenient route to the desired result) or the intent of the legislators (unless the legislators can be found to have intended, in some sense, the desired result) than the history and tradition of the US. Why don't they have the guts to say that what they mean by US tradition is “The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must?” or the stronger Wilhoit's law: "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."