Dixson v. United States
1984 U.S. LEXIS 35, 465 U.S. 482, 79 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who is not a formal employee of the United States government can still be considered a 'public official' under the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(a), if they occupy a position of public trust with official responsibilities for administering a federal program or policy.
Facts:
- The city of Peoria received federal Community Development Block Grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund urban renewal programs.
- Peoria designated United Neighborhoods, Inc. (UNI), a private, non-profit social-service organization, to act as the subgrantee responsible for administering the federal funds.
- UNI hired James A. Dixson as its Executive Director and James L. Hinton as its Housing Rehabilitation Coordinator.
- Dixson's responsibilities included fiscal control and executing contracts, while Hinton's duties included contracting with firms for housing rehabilitation projects.
- Dixson and Hinton used their positions to solicit and accept kickbacks from contractors in exchange for awarding them housing rehabilitation contracts funded by the federal grants.
- The salaries for Dixson and Hinton were paid using the federal grant funds.
- As a practical matter, Dixson and Hinton had the sole authority to decide which contractors and property owners would receive the benefits of the federal grant program.
Procedural Posture:
- James A. Dixson and James L. Hinton were indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the federal bribery statute.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing they were not 'public officials' under the statute; the motion was denied.
- Following a jury trial, petitioners were convicted as charged.
- Petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the convictions.
- The United States Supreme Court granted petitioners' writs of certiorari to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are officers of a private, non-profit corporation that administers federal grant funds considered 'public officials' under the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. Officers of a private corporation administering federal grants are 'public officials' because the proper inquiry is not whether a person has a formal contract with the government, but whether the person occupies a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities. The language 'acting for or on behalf of the United States' in § 201(a) was intended by Congress to have a broad scope, covering all individuals performing activities for the United States, regardless of the form of delegation. The legislative history, particularly the endorsement of the case United States v. Levine, shows that Congress did not intend to limit the statute to those with a direct contractual or agency relationship with the government. By accepting the responsibility to distribute federal funds according to federal guidelines, Dixson and Hinton assumed a 'quintessentially official role' of administering a program established by Congress, making them public officials subject to the bribery statute.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No. The officers should not be considered 'public officials' under the statute. The statutory language is ambiguous, and the rule of lenity requires that such ambiguity in a criminal statute be resolved in favor of the defendant. The legislative history is too weak to clarify Congress's intent to include federal grant recipients. The majority's 'public trust' standard is as vague as the statute itself and provides no clear guidance. Furthermore, the principles of grantee autonomy and federalism create a presumption that recipients of federal grants, particularly state and local governments, are acting on their own behalf, not 'on behalf of the United States.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of the federal bribery statute beyond direct government employees and contractors. It establishes a functional test based on 'public trust' and 'federal responsibilities,' which makes the statute applicable to a vast number of individuals in private, state, and local entities that administer the ever-growing number of federal grant programs. This ruling strengthens the federal government's ability to prosecute corruption related to its funds, but it also creates uncertainty for grant administrators regarding their potential liability under federal law, as the 'public trust' standard is not precisely defined.
Unlock the full brief for Dixson v. United States