In a week filled with Supreme Court decisions expected to be of great consequence for corporate integrity professionals, the high court also complicated public corruption cases. A group from Womble Bond Dickinson explores the details and what the Snyder decision could mean over the long haul.
Editor’s note: This article was co-authored by Luke Cass, Joe Whitley, Rhett DeHart, Michael Clark and Ben Smith of Womble Bond Dickinson.
“The Government’s interpretation of the statute would create traps for unwary state and local officials.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the majority in Snyder v. United States
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a public corruption case that could have a lasting impact on how the U.S. government prosecutes corruption and procurement fraud cases involving state and local officials. In Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court overturned the criminal conviction of James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, for taking an illegal gratuity payment under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). This statute prohibits certain state and local employees from corruptly accepting a payment intended to “influence[] or reward[]” an official act. The Supreme Court held that the statute applies only to the bribery of state or local officials and does not…
