The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a crucial federal bribery law aimed at state and local officials does not also criminalize after-the-fact rewards known as “gratuities.”
The ruling in the appeal of former Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder could have a major impact on public corruption prosecutions in Chicago, including the cases of former Illinois House Speaker 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 officials.”
The high court’s decision to take up the Snyder case interrupted the momentum federal prosecutors here had built through a series of corruption trials in 2023. Not only were a group of onetime Madigan allies set to be sentenced in January for a nearly decade-long scheme to bribe the ex-speaker, but Madigan had been set to go to trial this spring.
Instead, Madigan’s trial is now set for October, and sentencing hearings for the four Madigan allies have been put on hold.
The corruption conviction of Snyder gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to study a law known as the “federal program bribery” statute. It applies to any state or local government agent who “corruptly solicits … anything of value … intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business” worth $5,000 or more.
Madigan’s lawyers have noted that seven of the 23 counts he faces in his indictment are tied to the law in question.
It’s involved in five of the counts in the separate case dealing with the four Madigan allies, who include former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore.
The central question proposed to the court was whether, in addition to bribery, the law also criminalizes something called a “gratuity.” A gratuity is a reward given corruptly — but without a quid pro quo — for an official act that has usually already happened.
Snyder accepted $13,000 from a trucking company after he helped engineer contracts with his city in the company’s favor. A jury later convicted him of “corrupt solicitation.” Snyder’s attorneys say he did not approach the company for money “until after Portage awarded the contracts,” so there was no quid pro quo.
During oral arguments in April, the Supreme Court justices grilled a government lawyer about the definition of a key word in the statute: “corruptly.”
“What is innocuous and what is not?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. “And, just as important, how is the official supposed to know ahead of time, ‘Oh, the $100 gift certificate is OK, but the larger one is not?”
Justice Neil Gorsuch at one point asked, “Is it a sin? Are we now talking about something that, you know, would be a venial sin? Or does it have to be a mortal one?”
Assistant Solicitor General Colleen Sinzdak repeatedly told the justices that “corruptly” refers to “consciousness of wrongdoing.” Gorsuch tried to clarify that a defendant must know that what he is doing is “unlawful,” but Sinzdak again stressed, “or wrongful.”