Supreme Court Poised to Cut Back Scope of Anti-Corruption Law.

The question for the justices was whether a federal law prohibits not only before-the-fact bribes but also after-the-fact rewards.

The Supreme Court seemed ready on Monday to limit the reach of a federal statute that makes it a crime for state and local officials, along with institutions that receive federal money, to accept gifts and payments meant to influence or reward their actions.

'In a lively argument studded with hypothetical questions about gifts as varied as cookies, Starbucks gift cards, meals at the Cheesecake Factory and 10-figure donations to hospitals, a majority of the justices seemed persuaded that the government’s interpretation of the law was too broad.

Before the argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced that Justice Clarence Thomas would be absent but would participate in the case by reading the briefs and the transcript of the argument. The chief justice did not say why.

The case concerned James Snyder, who was mayor of Portage, Ind., along Lake Michigan, when the city bought garbage trucks from a local company under a bidding process that prosecutors said had been manipulated to ensure the company prevailed. After the process was complete, the company paid Mr. Snyder $13,000 for what he later said were consulting services.

Prosecutors charged Mr. Snyder with violating the federal law, which covers anyone “who solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded.” He was found guilty in March 2021 and sentenced to 21 months in prison.

The question for the justices was whether the law applies only to before-the-fact bribes or also to after-the-fact gratuities.

Lisa S. Blatt, a lawyer for Mr. Snyder, warned the justices that a broad reading of the law would turn routine gifts into crimes backed by 10-year prison sentences. She added that it was impossible to draw a workable line between prohibited gifts and permissible ones.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/us/supreme-court-anti-corruption-law.html

Anything in it for Thomas, y'all think???