United States v. Oaks
302 F. Supp. 3d 716 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislator's acceptance of payment in exchange for requesting that a bill be drafted by a legislative body constitutes an 'official act' for the purposes of federal and state bribery laws. Such an action falls squarely within the core conduct proscribed by bribery statutes, even after the Supreme Court's narrowing of the 'official act' definition in McDonnell v. United States.
Facts:
- Nathaniel T. Oaks was a Maryland State Senator.
- Oaks allegedly agreed to receive, and did receive, cash payments.
- In exchange for the payments, Oaks allegedly agreed to use his official position to influence the performance of his duties.
- Specifically, Oaks requested that the Maryland Department of Legislative Services draft a bond bill on behalf of the party providing the payments.
- According to Maryland General Assembly guidelines, organizations seeking state funding via a bond bill must have a senator or delegate sponsor the request.
- The legislator-sponsor is responsible for formally requesting that the bill be drafted.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a Superseding Indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, charging Senator Nathaniel T. Oaks with multiple federal crimes.
- The charges included honest services wire fraud (Count Four) and five counts of violating the Travel Act (Counts Five through Nine), which relied on Maryland's bribery statute as the underlying 'unlawful activity.'
- Defendant Oaks filed a Motion to Dismiss Count Four, arguing the indictment failed to allege an 'official act' under the standard set by McDonnell v. United States.
- Oaks also filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts Five through Nine, arguing that the indictment failed to state an offense and that the underlying Maryland bribery statute was unconstitutionally vague.
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 a state legislator's alleged act of accepting money to request the drafting of a bond bill constitute the performance of an 'official duty' under Maryland's bribery statute sufficient to sustain federal charges under the Travel Act and defeat a constitutional vagueness challenge?
Opinions:
Majority - Not specified in the provided text
Yes. A legislator's request to draft a bill is a quintessential official act that falls within the scope of Maryland's bribery statute and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied. Unlike the conduct in McDonnell v. United States, which involved merely arranging meetings or hosting events, the act of drafting legislation lies at the very heart of a legislator's official purpose. The court reasoned that official Maryland General Assembly guidelines explicitly state that a legislator must sponsor and request such a bill, making it an expressly authorized duty. Therefore, the alleged conduct is a 'decision or action on a qualifying step' of a formal process, satisfying the McDonnell standard. Because Oaks's alleged conduct falls squarely within the 'hard core' of the statute's proscriptions, his constitutional vagueness challenge fails, as the statute clearly provided him with fair notice that his actions were illegal.
Analysis:
This decision serves as an important application of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in McDonnell v. United States, clarifying the boundary between permissible constituent services and illegal bribery. It establishes that while McDonnell narrowed the definition of an 'official act' to exclude mere political access and influence, it did not immunize core, formal legislative functions. The ruling demonstrates that when a public official takes a concrete, procedural step that is an exclusive part of their official duties—such as initiating legislation—in exchange for payment, it clearly constitutes bribery. This provides a key precedent for prosecutors in distinguishing between the types of conduct that McDonnell protected and the quintessential corruption that bribery laws are designed to prevent.
