Justice Jackson takes shot at Supreme Court ethics in dissent on bribery case

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the other conservative judges in declaring that "gratuities" are not the same as bribes in a ruling released on Wednesday.

In the case, Snyder v. United States, the Court decided that state and local bribery laws barring officials from "corruptly" accepting gifts or cash do not govern "gratuities" given as a token of appreciation.

As explained in a summary written by the SCOTUS blog, the defendant in the case was convicted by a jury for violating federal laws after he ensured more than $1 million in city contracts were given to a local truck dealership after that dealership had given him a check for $13,000 in "consulting."

"State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local governments may accept. [The federal law] does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [the federal law] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials," the ruling said.

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a shot at the current Supreme Court's ethics controversies by arguing that "Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's Court could love."

The justice's criticism is an allusion to the many "gratuities" accepted by other justices over the years, most specifically by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Watchdog organization Fix the Court has reported that Thomas accepted more than $4.8 million in gifts between 2004 and 2023, according to the Court's voluntary reporting.

The only other judge on the court to come close was Alito, with over $170,000 in gifts.

Trashing the court's ruling were both legal analysts and casual observers, who complained it was giving a green light to bribery.

"So as long as I pay the bribe *after* I obtain the thing of value I'm seeking, that's ok?" one follower of legal analyst Anna Bower asked.

"So, PROMISES of bribes are fine. Got it," commented Lisbeth Ash.

One ex-prosecutor explained that under federal laws a "gratuity" is treated differently than a bribe "with different elements and different punishments under the statute that applies only to federal officials. Bribery is treated more severely."

"The defendant was convicted using 'bribery' elements for an act that is defined in the 'federal official' statute as a gratuity — and less severe," the lawyer continued. "The Court rejected DOJ's claim that Sec. 666 applied to both 'bribery' and 'gratuity' with the same language. That adds to my list of cases — 8 now I think — of losses by DOJ over the past 2 decades when the issue involved an expansive reading by DOJ of a criminal statute, a conviction, affirmed on appeal, and then reversed by the Supreme Court."

White-collar crime lawyer Randall Eliason agreed, saying that the Snyder decision "makes sense," because the law only covers bribes and not gratuities.

See the Fix the Court chart showing "gratuities" below or at the link here.