Page 10 - NovemberDecember24 Report

By Ben Sandlin
The Supreme Court Tips the Balance
to the States in Investigating and Prosecuting
Gratuities to Public Officials
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court announced its deci-
sion in Snyder v. U.S.1 The Court held a gratuity paid to a
state official does not violate federal bribery law, 18 U.S.C.
§ 666(a)(1)(B) (“Section 666”). The Court’s ruling impacts state
and local public officials, and private citizens and businesses who
deal with state officials. Snyder also creates arguments to defend
against alleged violations of other federal bribery laws.
Snyder Held Gratuities to State Officials Aren’t
Bribes Under Section 666
James Snyder is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. Under
Snyder’s administration, Portage awarded contracts to a truck
company to purchase trash trucks for $1,100,000 in 2013. In 2014,
the truck company with which the City contracted sent Snyder
$13,000. Federal prosecutors suspected the payment was a bribe
in exchange for the trash truck contracts. Snyder explained that
the payment was for consulting services, not an official action.
Federal prosecu-
tors indicted Snyder
for bribery in viola-
tion of Section 666.2
Under Section 666, it
is unlawful for a state,
local, or tribal official
to “corruptly solicit[]
or demand[] for the
benefit of any person, or accept[] or agree[] to accept, anything
of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded
in connection with any business, transaction, or series of trans-
actions of such organization, government, or agency involving
anything of value of $5,000 or more.”3 The jury convicted Snyder
of accepting an illegal gratuity under Section 666.
10 Gratuities are not bribes. A bribe requires “that the offi-
cial have a corrupt state of mind and accept (or agree to accept)
the payment intending to be influenced in [an] official act.”4
In contrast, a gratuity comes after an official act, like parents
providing “an end-of-year gift basket to their child’s public school
teacher.”5 The Snyder Court held that a gratuity does not violate
Section 666: “[a]lthough a gratuity . . . may be unethical or illegal
under federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate”
Section 666.6
Snyder Has Local and Federal Implications
The Court’s limitation on Section 666 prosecutions shifts
focus to the states. Many states already regulate gratuities,7
including Ohio8 and Kentucky. For example, Kentucky law9
prohibits a legislator from knowingly accepting compensation
or gifts from any source other than payments authorized from
the General Assembly (i.e., the legislator’s salary); violation is a
Class A misdemeanor.
Still, state prosecutions
of anti-gratuity laws
can be rare. Only two
courts have ever cited
this Kentucky statute,
and both are federal
courts relating to the
same civil case.10 State
prosecutors could increase investigations into violations of state
anti-gratuity laws to compensate for the Government’s inability
to prosecute gratuities under Section 666. Federal investigators
will continue to investigate conduct pre-dating official action.
The result is potentially increased coordination between state and
federal investigators which could create dual-investigation issues.
THE REPORT | November/December 2024 | CincyBar.org
Expanded state and local anti-gratuity laws and
investigations will impact the private sector. Many
existing statutes punish the person providing the
gratuity, not just the official receiving it.