Zoe Smith
Associate Editor
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026
The Supreme Court of the United States released its 6-3 opinion on Snyder v. United States on June 26, 2024. This decision overturned the conviction of Indiana mayor, James Snyder, who was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity in violation of Title 18, §666(a)(1)(B) of the United States Code. The Supreme Court held that §666 does not criminalize gratuities for several reasons: the statute’s text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice. The scope of §666 is severely narrowed, bringing the question: What is the potential impact of Snyder on other federal and state bribery laws as they apply to state and local officials?
Bribes vs. gratuities
18 USC §666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes any government official who “corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act. The Court in Snyder, in making their decision, drew an important distinction between gratuities and bribes, stating that bribes are typically payments made or agreed to before an official act, whereas gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act.
The result of the Court’s ruling means that, for a public official to be held accountable under §666, the government must prove that there was a corrupt intent to reward them before they act. A major argument in favor of the decision is that some gratuities are “commonplace” and may be “innocuous” while others are problematic, but without a clear distinction between the two, states are free to interpret gratuities as they may. The ambiguity between what is a bribe or a gratuity will likely help many officials receive gratuities that once would have been classified as bribes.
How the decision may impact government employees, public officials, and prosecutors
The impact of Snyder is sure to affect many public official corruption prosecutions across the country. The Wall Street Journal states that this decision is “the latest in a series of high-court rulings reining in federal prosecutions targeting corruption in state and local government.” The Court has a long history of “imposing constitutional limits on the government’s ability to fight corruption and restrict money in politics.” Many are beginning to wonder if this recent decision evidences corruption itself, with articles noting that the Supreme Court has faced criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from benefactors to some justices.
As a result of the Snyder decision, governmental officials will likely begin accepting “gratuities” that normally would be regarded as bribes, leading to corruption. Many states will likely amend their gifting statutes to account for the Snyder decision. Officials should be aware of this before accepting gratuities as defined under the Snyder decision.
Illinois is prepping for the effects of the Snyder decision as there are corruption cases in the state involving the former House Speaker and the “ComEd Four”; the key bribery provision of the federal statute (§666) having been used in both cases. According to the ComEd Four’s defense attorneys, the Snyder ruling should result an acquittal of all charges, a dismissal or a new trial.
The Office of Government Ethics
The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has implemented 18 U.S.C. §201 and established numerous gratuities rules and exceptions already. As of August 15th, 2024, the final rule published by the OGE revising the Standards of Ethical Conduct of Employees of the Executive Branch has taken effect and it covers gifts extensively. In the rule, the OGE states that “each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above private gain.” It lists §201 as a statute that should be considered in addition to the principles listed concerning ethical conduct.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) which regulates the payments, gifts, or offers of anything of value that may be provided to foreign officials. With there no longer being a distinct line between bribery and gratuities, it may be more difficult to enforce regulations applying to foreign officials. The ruling may bolster the argument that the FCPA “does not extend to gratuities without evidence of a quid pro quo.”
The Snyder decision will force prosecutors to focus on developing evidence of a corrupt agreement that existed before the official act was taken by the government official. That same requirement is found in the FCPA, thus we can expect that “in assessing the thoroughness of any internal investigation into potential FCPA matters, prosecutors will expect companies to have conducted a searching review into whether such an agreement existed, and when it was made.” It is likely that many further court opinions and regulations will cover how these agreements should be interpreted.
What companies should be paying close attention to going forward
Snyder raises several issues that corporations should consider when regulating the conduct of the company and its employees. With such a thin line between bribes and gratuities, companies should refrain from offering such “thank you” gifts or wait a significant amount of time after the companies’ work for the official is complete. Further, Snyder “underscores the need for companies dealing with government officials to carefully navigate local, state, and federal laws/regulations relating to gift giving and lobbying.” Businesses should continuously review their existing regulations regarding interactions with government officials to ensure compliance with state and local laws and they should expect the need to alter such regulations to account for increased attempts at corruption.
Although Snyder is recent, many questions are already emerging from it that only time will have the answers to. How will the government determine what conduct qualifies as corrupt? How will states determine how to regulate public officials and the gratuities they can receive? The decision will lead to even more corruption in the political system, so how can prosecutors expect to pursue public corruption cases? Federal prosecutors will continue to find a way to pursue these cases, even though they will likely have to change their approach and standards moving forward. If one thing is clear, the federal government’s regulation of the state and local government’s acceptance of gratuities is limited even further and we can expect to see regulations on gratuities changing to account for this on the state level as well.