Bribe or Gratuity? Supreme Court Narrows Federal Bribery Statute

By Brett W. Johnson, James Melendres, Derek C. Flint, T. Troy Galan, and Cole Craghan

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal bribery conviction against an Indiana mayor, ruling that the $13,000 payment he received was merely a “gratuity” not covered by the Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds statute.¹ See 18 U.S.C. § 666. The ruling significantly narrows the reach of this federal statute, which criminalizes bribes involving federal funds, concluding that a “token of appreciation” given after an official act does not rise to the level of a corrupt bribe accepted before an official act. The opinion noted that this distinction shields approximately 19 million state and local officials from federal bribery charges resulting from commonplace activity.

The federal statute at issue in this opinion prohibits state and local government officials from “corruptly” accepting “anything of value” if the official intends to be “influenced or rewarded'” for any official business valued at $5,000 or more. Prior to the ruling, U.S. circuit courts were split on whether a “gratuity” accepted after an official action could rise to the level of a corrupt act under 18 U.S.C. § 666. The ruling clarifies that it cannot.

This decision explained that a vague application of the law could potentially criminalize activities such as accepting a “$200 Nike gift card” or students “taking their college professor out to Chipotle.” While bribes bear a connection to “corrupt” acts and are prohibited at various jurisdictional levels, federal and state laws proscribe only certain gratuities in a more nuanced fashion, with many of the prohibitions occurring at the local level. 

Referring to the nuanced state limits on gratuities for public officials, the ruling emphasized the role of the states in discerning right from wrong in this area, noting that Indiana had not brought any charges against the mayor for his actions. Thus, the decision not only curtails federal corruption law, but follows the recent trend of deferring regulation to the states. The ruling also noted that the act at issue may still be illegal under state or local law. 

Indeed, those involved in any form of payments to government officials must still be cognizant of other laws criminalizing corruption, including federal statutes. These include the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Joint Ethics Regulations, and government contract requirements governing gratuities, even those provided after an official act. As this ruling has already received widespread media attention, it is a key time for companies to update and reinforce compliance programs, which may include yearly training and corruption certification from third parties. In particular, companies should review company policies and the law related to gifts and gratuities to government (or even private) individuals that may be perceived as attempting to obtain an unfair advantage.
 

Footnotes

1. Snyder v. United States, No. 23-108 (U.S. June 26, 2024). [Back]