McDonnell v. United States
2016 U.S. LEXIS 4062, 195 L. Ed. 2d 639, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a public official’s action to constitute an 'official act' under federal bribery statutes, the official must make a decision or take an action on a specific and focused 'question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy' that involves a formal exercise of governmental power. Merely arranging meetings, contacting other officials, or hosting events does not, by itself, qualify as an 'official act.'
Facts:
- Robert McDonnell, while serving as Governor of Virginia, and his wife accepted over $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from Jonnie Williams, the CEO of Star Scientific.
- Williams sought Governor McDonnell's assistance in getting Virginia's public universities to perform research studies on Anatabloc, a nutritional supplement developed by Star Scientific.
- In exchange for the financial benefits, Governor McDonnell arranged meetings for Williams with Virginia government officials to discuss and promote Anatabloc.
- Governor McDonnell also hosted events at the Governor's Mansion designed to encourage university researchers to initiate studies of Anatabloc and to promote the product.
- McDonnell contacted other government officials within his office to encourage state research universities to study anatabine.
- McDonnell allowed Williams to invite individuals important to Star Scientific's business to exclusive events at the Governor's Mansion.
- At one meeting with state health officials, Governor McDonnell personally suggested that Anatabloc would be good for state employees and asked the officials to meet with a representative from Star Scientific.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Government indicted Robert McDonnell in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on charges including honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion.
- At trial, the District Court provided jury instructions that defined 'official act' broadly, consistent with the government's interpretation.
- The jury convicted McDonnell on the honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion charges.
- The District Court denied McDonnell's post-trial motion to vacate the convictions based on the allegedly erroneous jury instructions.
- McDonnell, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction, upholding the District Court's broad definition of 'official act.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'official act' under federal bribery statutes encompass routine political courtesies, such as arranging meetings, contacting other officials, or hosting events for a constituent?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No, the term 'official act' does not encompass routine political activities such as arranging a meeting, making a call, or hosting an event. An 'official act' is a decision or action on a 'question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,' which must be a formal, focused, and concrete exercise of governmental power. The government’s broad interpretation, which would criminalize routine constituent services, raises significant constitutional concerns regarding due process vagueness, federalism, and the potential to chill legitimate political discourse. Reading the statute narrowly, the Court held that for an action to be an 'official act,' a public official must make a decision or take an action on a specific matter pending before the government, or agree to do so. This can include using one's official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an official act, but it does not include simply providing access or arranging a meeting.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision significantly narrows the scope of federal public corruption laws by providing a more constrained definition of 'official act.' It raises the evidentiary bar for prosecutors, who must now prove a direct link between a thing of value and a specific, formal government decision or action, rather than just an exchange for political access or influence. The ruling protects officials engaged in routine constituent services from potential prosecution, but critics argue it may make it harder to prosecute sophisticated bribery schemes where influence is traded for access rather than explicit promises. Future corruption cases will hinge on whether the government can prove the official agreed to take a concrete governmental step, like awarding a contract or directing funding, not just opening doors.
Unlock the full brief for McDonnell v. United States