The Court of Bribes and conflict of interest. UGHSupreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.
In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.
"The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no," said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.
Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.
But the court's conservative majority said the law in question was a "bribery statute, not a gratuities law." Kavanaugh said federal law "leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials."
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
"Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions," Jackson wrote in dissent.
She said the mayor's "absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s court could love."
The law as written "poses no genuine threat to common gift giving," she said, but it "clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment [the mayor] solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership."
The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.
Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that "rewarded" them for having steered contracts to the donors. But there are few prosecutions that rely entirely on an after-the-fact payment, they said.
The Supreme Court justices have faced heavy criticism recently for accepting undisclosed gifts from wealthy patrons. Justice Clarence Thomas regularly took lavish vacations and private jet flights that were paid for by Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took a fishing trip to Alaska in 2008 aboard a private plane owned by Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire.
The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting "illegal gratuities" to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific "official act," not just because of the official's position.
The Indiana mayor was charged and convicted of taking the $13,000 payment because of his role in helping his patrons win city contracts.
Congress in 1986 extended the federal bribery law to cover officials of state or local agencies that receive federal funds. The measure made it a crime to "corruptly solicit or demand ... or accept ... anything of value of $5,000 or more ... intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction."
Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Ind., in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot.
Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.
An FBI investigation led to Snyder's indictment, his conviction and a 21-month prison sentence.
The former mayor argued that an after-the-fact gift should not be a crime, but he lost before a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Chicago.
The high court agreed to hear his appeal in Snyder vs. U.S. because appeals courts in Boston and New Orleans had limited the law to bribery only and not gratuities that were paid later.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the scope of public corruption laws and often in unanimous rulings. The common theme is that the justices concluded the prosecutions went beyond the law.
Last year, the court was unanimous in overturning the corruption convictions of two New York men who were former aides or donors to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. The court noted that one of the defendants convicted of taking illicit payments did not work for the state during that time.
Four years ago, the justices were unanimous in overturning the convictions of two aides to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, who were charged with conspiring to shut down lanes to the George Washington Bridge into New York City. The court said they were wrongly convicted of fraud because they had not sought money or property, which is a key element of a fraud charge.
In 2016, the court overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. While the governor took $175,000 in gifts from a business promoter, he took no official actions to benefit the donor, the court said.
Supreme Court
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
The Court of Bribes and conflict of interest. UGH
I thought the law of the land was that no one could sit in judgement of themselves. Guess the Supremes ARE above the law after all and just as self-serving as their cult leader who appointed most of them.
Stillwater Townie
Deputy
This ruling by the Supreme Court will thankfully hamper conspiracy theory nut Mike Adam's lawsuit against various media companies and government agencies that led him to being kicked off for shamelessly spreading spam, crass misinformation and fake news. In response as Alex Jones did, Adams, known as the quack's quack, formed his own YouTube like network to spread his conspiracy insanity, so he is not getting his free speech denied. Other extremist nuts are invited to participate in it. If you want to get on it to say the Holocaust never happened and NAZI concentration camps were really vacation resorts, you can without worry of being deleted or banned. Links to his network are banned from Facebook and X, hence his lawsuit against them.
Last edited:
No More School Religious Exemptions for Vaccines: Supreme Court Backs Connecticut's Vaccine Law
The Supreme Court has upheld a 2021 Connecticut law that removes the state's religious exemption for childhood vaccinations required for school attendance. The decision, made on Monday, means students in Connecticut will no longer be able to claim religious reasons to avoid vaccinations, except for existing exemptions held by current K-12 students.This ruling follows a previous decision by a federal appeals court, which had also upheld the law. The law was challenged in court, with opponents arguing it infringed on religious freedoms. However, a lower court had already dismissed this lawsuit, leading to the appeals and eventually the Supreme Court's decision not to intervene.
Connecticut's law mandates vaccinations for students enrolling in schools, colleges, and daycare facilities, with some allowances for medical exemptions. Before 2021, the state permitted religious exemptions, but lawmakers voted to eliminate these due to concerns about rising exemption requests and declining vaccination rates in certain schools.
Attorney General William Tong praised the ruling, emphasizing that it was a crucial step in protecting public health. He stated that the legislature acted responsibly to safeguard Connecticut families from preventable diseases, and the courts have affirmed this stance.
Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court ruled Friday that people without homes can be fined for sleeping in public spaces, overturning a lower court’s ruling that enforcing camping bans when shelter is lacking is cruel and unusual punishment.
The 6-3 decision was the most significant ruling on the issue from the high court in decades.
It comes as record numbers of Americans lack permanent housing and as both Democratic and Republican leaders have complained a 2018 decision by a lower court has hamstrung their ability to address homeless encampments that threaten health and public safety.
“The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, referring to the small Oregon municipality at the center of the case. “The city imposes only limited fines for first-time offenders, an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park for repeat offenders, and a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail for those who later violate an order.”
Cruel and unusual punishment?
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court's liberal minority, said the laws essentially criminalized the act of sleeping.“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Sotomayor wrote in dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that banning camping in areas that lacked sufficient shelter beds amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
The Supreme Court declined to weigh in at the time on that case from Boise, Idaho, but took up the issue this term after that precedent was used to challenge anti-camping rules in Grants Pass, Oregon.
Homeless residents of the southern Oregon city of 38,000 had faced fines starting at $250 and leading to jail time for repeat offenses.
Criminalizing homelessness in a city without a homeless shelter
Advocates for homeless people said the rules amounted to criminalizing someone for having nowhere to live. The city lacks sufficient affordable housing. The one shelter for adults requires attendance at daily Christian services, along with other rules. Hundreds of residents are unhoused."We don't want to be in the parks," said Helen Cruz, a Grants Pass resident who lacks permanent shelter. "We want a place to live."
City officials said without the Supreme Court’s intervention, they would be forced to surrender their public spaces.
The Justice Department had mostly backed the challengers while also arguing that the appeals court ruling was too broad and didn’t take into account individual circumstances such as whether someone had access to a shelter and refused it.
People gather near an encampment of unhoused people in Skid Row as a powerful long-duration atmospheric river storm, the second in less than a week, impacts Southern California on Feb. 6, 2024 in Los Angeles. Skid Row is home to thousands of people who are either experiencing homelessness on the streets or living in shelters.
On any given night in the United States, more than 600,000 people are likely to be homeless, according to the federal government. Last year, 40% of homeless individuals slept under bridges, on sidewalks, in parks, cars, abandoned buildings and other public locations.
The case, which is City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, attracted an unusually large number of briefs filed by outside interests.
Advocates for the homeless hoped that even if the decision didn't go their way, the case would spur elected officials at all levels of government to do more to address homelessness.
PF5
Ranger
The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision
The Supreme Court has upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
apnews.com
Don't miss this one. EPA and other agencies getting powers cut again by the court. Wouldn't be a big deal if congress actually worked but as is they are getting less able to fill in the needed gaps.
I have to admit I'm pretty torn on the homeless issue. While I am compassionate, I also have found that the policy of "leaving them alone" has forced me to:
1. Clean up human shit and broken bottles from my office doorway where they hang out
2. Avoid parks that we planned to go to because they had basically taken the park over and were making us uncomfortable with begging and leering.
3. Constant minor theft from around the house- I realize this isn't necessarily all homeless, but the type things taken likely were.
At what point does the impact of those that don't/can't/won't care for themselves on those that are working/paying/supporting the society get enough that we can no longer accept it?
I don't have the answer, but what we are doing now clearly is not working at all.
Yes ignoring it and doing nothing to help people doesnt fix the problem. Based on countries that have had success it looks like we need to create a place to house them, provide food, addiction and mental health treatment vs ignoring - look at Finland's approach. But can't punish just for existing and need to actually help to fix the problem.
Fiscal conservatives would hate any real solution because they all cost money. Their view must be to fine or jail them... which only sets them behind in life even more and exacerbates the issue.
A friend of mine just pointed this out to me.
SCOTUS rules Rules that gifts can be accepted by government officials after a decision is made even if by the entity the decision favored. Then they Overturned Chevron decision from 40 years ago. Two don't look connected at first glance but can be. In the Chevron over turn they are taking power away from gov agencies and bringing the courts into the decision process more now... think about this based on the "recent" behavior of this court.
So they are encouraging more corporate challenges to gov agencies (EPA etc) and also saying that gifts can be made to gov officials after the fact in a quid pro quo manner.
Court of corruption continues
SCOTUS rules Rules that gifts can be accepted by government officials after a decision is made even if by the entity the decision favored. Then they Overturned Chevron decision from 40 years ago. Two don't look connected at first glance but can be. In the Chevron over turn they are taking power away from gov agencies and bringing the courts into the decision process more now... think about this based on the "recent" behavior of this court.
So they are encouraging more corporate challenges to gov agencies (EPA etc) and also saying that gifts can be made to gov officials after the fact in a quid pro quo manner.
Court of corruption continues
Apparently Supreme Court justices are now truly above the law, and welcome, and create more graft and corruption to their personal benefit. If you want justice you’ll have to buy it. Can you imagine legal BRIBES? Only corporations and the top
1% have the big enough bucks to sway and find favor with the court. Move to the end of the line peons! Justice has a price.
1% have the big enough bucks to sway and find favor with the court. Move to the end of the line peons! Justice has a price.
Jailing them also costs money.
bubba_
New member
but they don't have to SEE the poors if they're in jail!!
Completely agree but that's not how they think. Jail anyone you don't like.
However, jails are also a source of cheap forced labor.
Yep. Major companies can now cut corners on things called out in regulations but not law, then challenge any penalties... with the court knowing that if they rule for the company they could get a gift whereas the gov will never provide that reward. The cost becomes much less than following the regulations that protect people, environment, or whatever else.
Only word for that is corruption.
Stillwater Townie
Deputy
Sounds like something Trump would richly support. He's already up front wanting to do favors for the oil companies if they give him a billion dollars. If you value your home in Oklahoma, Trump needs asked if he would favor letting oil companies go on unimpeded after their activity has been associated with earthquakes. Surely Trump loving Oklahoma Corporation Commission members would be open to taking bribes.
Why should these partisan judges stop here. It’s been said that Thomas Jefferson was the last person who knew everything. Now judges are claiming to know all things. They claim to know as much or more than experts in the field. What’s next? Judges taking over battlefield decisions? Might as well get rid of Congress and military leaders an let the Supreme Court determine everything. Their typical 80 cases per year that they manage should increase exponentially. Hope these geniuses are up to the task. Might need to increase their numbers to like 30-40.
Similar threads
