The Supreme Court, in the middle An unprecedented legitimacy crisis over gifts not reported to judges debated Monday whether an entrepreneur paying a $13,000 gratuity to a politician was the equivalent of taking a teacher to the Cheesecake Factory.
In 2012, James Synder was elected mayor of the northwest Indiana city of just under 38,000. Synder, who was struggling to keep his own business afloat and was behind on taxes, oversaw the bidding process for a contract to buy new garbage trucks for the city. The contract, worth more than $1.1 million, has been awarded to a local company and the final set of documents has been signed. A month later, in January 2014, Great Lakes trucking company Peterbilt sent Snyder $13,000 for what he later claimed were consulting services.
In 2019, Synder saw his second term ended prematurely when a federal jury convicted him of corruption. Although he appealed and was granted a new trial, the former mayor was convicted again in March 2021 and sentenced to 21 months in prison.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review an appeals court decision upholding the former Portage mayor’s conviction in 2021, turning this small corruption case into a national issue likely to legalize companies rewarding the public. officials in exchange for lucrative government favors.
The Supreme Court has consistently worked to narrow the definition of corruption, but the timing of the case and its subject matter are interesting: Over the past year, the Court has faced unprecedented scrutiny of the revelations that the judges received and failed to disclose luxury gifts.
As The lever As we recently noted, high-profile corruption cases in other states have been put on hold while prosecutors wait to see how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter. Snyder v. United States.
In a debate Monday peppered with hypothetical Cheesecake Factory meals, gift baskets and Starbucks gift cards, the judges seemed ready to side with the convicted Indiana mayor.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the facts of the case were great for the government, but he was hesitant to subject 19 million state and local workers to the law, which has been in place for decades.
Justice Elena Kagan weighed in, supporting his statement. “This law applies not just to government officials, but to almost every important institution in America,” she said, giving the example of a billionaire hospital patient receiving preferential treatment in the hope of receiving a large donation.
The “problem is that the word ‘corrupt’ then creates enormous uncertainty and vagueness about where the line is,” Kavanaugh argued. “You don’t know if the concert tickets, the game tickets, the Starbucks gift card, whatever, where the line is, and so there’s some vagueness.”
“Hint, how does anyone in the real world know the line? » Justice Neil Gorsuch reflected on Colleen Sinzdak, the lawyer defending the government. “Put aside the billionaires and the hospitals. Give small gifts to teachers, doctors, police officers all the time.
Gorsuch, seemingly unable to tell the difference between a slice of peanut butter fudge and a $13,000 gift, continued to offer hypotheses. “How does this law give fair notice to anyone in the world as to – and I hate to do this, but I’m going to do this – the difference between the Cheese Factory (sic)…,” he said. he declared, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett interrupted. jokingly, “Inn at Little Washington.”
“And the Little Washington Inn. Thank you, thank you,” Gorsuch responded. “How does anyone know?”
As the justices delved into semantics, Sinzdak said, “What you’re all talking about is these fringe cases,” adding that those cases would be “really difficult for the government to show awareness of wrongdoing.” “.
Later, Sinzdak explained, “I guess I’m not including here the kind of teacher apples and assumptions that you see in the petitioner’s brief.” They are simply not on the government’s radar. What we’re looking for, again, is the corrupt acceptance of payment with the intent of being rewarded in business or transactions worth at least $5,000.
More from Rolling Stone
The best of the Rolling Stones
yahoo
