- Click here for background from Oyez.
- Click here for info from Scotusblog.
Issue: Whether “official action” under the controlling fraud statutes is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional.
From the Atlantic: The Ex-Virginia Governor's Overturned Conviction.
McDonnell v. United States focused on the question of what constitutes “official action” under federal corruption statutes. The prosecution said McDonnell knowingly took “official action” to receive bribes, and the jury’s verdict supported that. McDonnell argued that “merely arranging a meeting, attending an event, hosting a reception, or making a speech are not, standing alone, ‘official acts.’” When the Supreme Court agreed to hear McDonnell’s appeal this spring, the justices considered whether the federal government’s definition of “official acts”—the one that was provided to the jury—applied to the governor’s case. In their ruling, the eight justices said Monday that interpretation could raise “significant constitutional concerns”
From Scotusblog: Symposium: An important victory for representative democracy.
Americans who believe democracy works best when public officials understand and serve the needs of their constituents can celebrate the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to throw out the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. The government prosecuted Governor McDonnell based on a sweeping legal theory that would have turned commonplace interactions with our elected officials into bribery. Under that theory, there was no need for prosecutors to prove he exercised governmental power in exchange for something of value. If that result had been allowed to stand, then merely hearing out a constituent’s concerns would qualify as an “official act” on which prosecutors could base felony corruption convictions. Today’s decision soundly rejecting such a theory preserves the key role of access in our representative democracy.
