What’s the difference between getting a $13,000 bribe versus a $13,000 gratuity as a reward for services rendered?
Your name is James Snyder. The year is 2014. You are the mayor of Portage, Indiana. Your city paid $1.1 million to a truck company to purchase new garbage trucks. After the contract was fulfilled, the truck company gave you, Mayor Snyder, $13,000 as a gratuity for services rendered.
Under federal law, Snyder was convicted of bribery and sentenced to 21 months in prison. “That [federal] law bars state and local government officials from ‘corruptly accepting’ anything of value of any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act…. Snyder maintains that the payment was for consulting services, but federal prosecutors called it an illegal gratuity” (scotusblog.com).
Snyder sued and it ended up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2024.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the conservative members’ 6-3 decision in favor of Snyder’s argument. As part of his argument, Kavanaugh “explained, the text of the stature is modeled on the provision criminalizing bribery for federal officials, and it ‘bears little resemblance to the provision that it makes it a crime for federal officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.’”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent for the three liberal justices. “The law was not designed to apply to teachers accepting fruit baskets, soccer coaches getting gift cards, or newspaper delivery guys who get a tip at Christmas.” The text of the law applies only when “state, local, or tribal governments receive at least $10,000 per year from a federal program….After today, however, the ability of the Federal Government to prosecute such obviously wrongful conduct is left in doubt” (scotusblog.com).
The first question that comes to mind is “Why the conservative hairsplitting?” There seems to be little difference between a bribe and a gratuity. How do we know that there was no oral agreement between what came before the contract and what was paid afterward? We’re not talking small gifts in this case. $13,000 is a lot of money.
Why would the conservative justices decide to separate a bribe from a gratuity, making one illegal and one legal? My guess comes from the fact that at least two conservative justices have been found to have received large “gratuities” (or are they bribes?) from rich conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas was feted with private trips, cruises, and gifts from wealthy conservative businessman Harlan Crow. This amounted to millions of dollars over the past two decades.
Justice Samuel Alito got an Alaskan fishing trip from hedge fund billionaire, Paul Singer. According to Propublica.org, had Alito paid for the private jet to Alaska, it would have cost him $100,000. The fishing boat would have cost $1,000/day. While there, Alito stayed at a commercial fishing lodge owned by a conservative billionaire donor. Three years before, Justice Antonin Scalia had taken a similar all-expenses-paid trip paid for by the same donor.
Singer’s hedge fund came before the Court at least ten times in succeeding years. Neither Justices Thomas nor Alito recused themselves when voting. Alito did not report the 2008 trip as is required by lower-level judges and was defensive and arrogant when presented with the evidence. Thomas did not report his gifts until pressure was put on him by Propublica’s revelations.
Could these gifts be bribes for future decisions or gratuities for past decisions? Does it make a difference? Shouldn’t justices who receive large gifts recuse themselves when these individuals and their corporations come before the Court? Ethics tells us that the answer is yes, but since SCOTUS has refused to be limited by the code of ethics that governs all the lower courts, it appears evident that SCOTUS justices are operating above the law. Justice Brown-Jackson’s dissent seems to be for the court itself and not just for the public: “After today, however, the ability of the Federal Government to prosecute such obviously wrongful conduct is left in doubt.” The only arbiter of their ethics is their own level of morality—or lack thereof.
Perhaps that is the reason for giving former President Trump differing levels of immunity in SCOTUS’ last decision of the session on July 1? It appears that Trump and the conservative court see themselves as elites who are above the law.
These justices’ actions do not set an ethical example for the rest of the nation. The Snyder and Trump decisions should tell the American people that the only check on the power of the conservative elites lies with “We the People,” and not the courts in the upcoming November election.
–
Richard Elfers is a columnist, a former Enumclaw City Council member and a Green River College professor.
