Arguing a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, particularly on a topic ubiquitous yet undefined as corruption, is no small task. This was made evident when the counsel for the US government, Colleen Sinzdak, spent most of her argument addressing a deeply entrenched and complex question: when, if ever, does a person “corruptly” solicit or offer a gift with intent to influence government action? According to an article by Gijs de Bra in JURIST, the court, in its relentless pursuit of specificity and clarity, maintained a restrained confusion and amusement regarding what “wrong” acts might fall under the umbrella of corruption and whether innocent gifts could trigger prosecution under the government’s theory.
The matter at hand was the case Snyder v. United States, which is centered around the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), a federal corruption statute, applies to gratuities as well as bribes. The word “rewarded” in the statute was frequently under the microscope, but the court seemed equally eager to finally pin down a clear definition for corruption, a concept at the heart of the statute’s prohibition of a government official “corruptly” soliciting anything of value from another party with an intent to be influenced or rewarded.
During the proceedings, Lisa Blatt, counsel for James Snyder, argued that the government’s interpretation of “corruptly” was overly broad, potentially resulting in everyday gifts to public officials being criminalized. She also underscored the point that Congress had deliberately removed text referring to gratuities from Section 666 in the 1986 amendment.
The grilling then transitioned to the government’s representative, Colleen Sinzdak, who faced numerous hypotheticals from the Justices trying to delineate the meaning of “corruptly”. Despite the complex and sometimes humorous hypotheticals revolving around Starbucks gift cards and posh dining experiences, Ms. Sinzdak argued that in the vast majority of cases prosecuted by the government, defining wrongdoing was fairly straightforward, with fringe cases raising the larger challenges.
Nonetheless, some Justices seemed reluctant, if not outright dissatisfied, with both offerings of argument. The exact meaning of “corruptly” and how it could potentially redefine the landscape of federal corruption law awaits a ruling from the SCOTUS bench, expected by the end of June.