'Judicial self-aggrandizement': Legal experts hammer Supreme Court for bribery ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on a case involving state and local bribery laws has elicited a strong reaction from many legal analysts.

Snyder v. United States dealt with a local case in which a contracting company gave a leader $13,000, and he later delivered a lucrative contract to them.

Although the defendant in the case had been convicted of bribery charges, the Supreme Court argued that the payment in question was a gratuity that was not covered by bribery laws.

Taking to social media in response to the ruling, former federal prosecutor Harry Litman anticipated that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) would use the ruling to demand the dropping of some of the charges against him.

White-collar crime professor Randall Eliason disagreed with this sentiment, however, and noted that Menendez wasn't charged under 18 USC 666, which is the specific law that the Supreme Court deals with.

ALSO READ: ‘Creepy weirdos’: Senator fears Trump WH staff would destroy government from ‘inside’

Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz pointed out that the Supreme Court "has decided five cases in the last eight years watering down federal anticorruption law. The only real shocker about today's decision in Snyder is that, for the first time, the outcome was not unanimous."

He noted that he was currently at work "writing a piece on" the cases and that "ideology at play does not track left/right."

"In brief, I think it's an ideology of judicial self-aggrandizement that profits from treating nonjudicial officials as engaged in an inherently degraded form of political activity," wrote Chafetz on X.

"Gratuities!" exclaimed legal writer Luppe B. Luppen. "You know, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or *disguising the phrase with a yawn* thick envelopes full of cash."

Former top DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann pointed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's "dissent in the Snyder case (permitting gratuities to be paid to state officials for official action). "

Jackson pointed directly to her colleagues who were accused of similar improprieties.

"Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions," Weissmann cited from Jackson's dissent.

He asked: "Thomas and Alito, you listening?"

Read the full dissent and ruling here.