400
Opinion of the Court
Robert W. Ray argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Donald C. Smaltz, Charles M. Kagay, and Stephen R. McAllister.
Eric W. Bloom argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Richard A. Hibey and Charles B. Klein.*
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Talmudic sages believed that judges who accepted bribes would be punished by eventually losing all knowledge of the divine law. The Federal Government, dealing with many public officials who are not judges, and with at least some judges for whom this sanction holds no terror, has constructed a framework of human laws and regulations defining various sorts of impermissible gifts, and punishing those who give or receive them with administrative sanctions, fines, and incarceration. One element of that framework is 18 U. S. C. § 201(c)(1)(A), the "illegal gratuity statute," which prohibits giving "anything of value" to a present, past, or future public official "for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official." In this case, we consider whether conviction under the illegal gratuity statute requires any showing beyond the fact that a gratuity was given because of the recipient's official position.
I
Respondent is a trade association that engaged in marketing and lobbying activities on behalf of its member cooperatives, which were owned by approximately 5,000 individual
*Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American League of Lobbyists by Samuel J. Buffone and Thomas M. Susman; and for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Carter G. Phillips, Thomas C. Green, Mark D. Hopson, and Lisa B. Kemler.
Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Malcolm L. Stewart filed a brief for the United States Department of Justice as amicus curiae.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007