WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to prosecute public officials for corruption, unanimously vacating the conviction of Bob McDonnell, a former governor of Virginia.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for the court, narrowed the definition of what sort of official act can serve as the basis of a corruption prosecution. The act must be a formal, specific and focused exercise of government power, he said, "such as a lawsuit, hearing or administrative determination." And prosecutors must prove, the chief justice continued, that the defendant made a decision or took action on the matter, or agreed to do so.
The alternative, Roberts wrote, would be to criminalize routine political courtesies.
The Supreme Court returned the case to an appeals court for an assessment of whether prosecutors in McDonnell's case had presented evidence to satisfy the narrow definition of corruption announced Monday. If so, prosecutors may seek to retry McDonnell, but under the stricter standard.
In a statement, McDonnell said he was innocent and expected to be vindicated.
"I have not, and would not, betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office," he said. "It is my hope that this matter will soon be over and that my family and I can begin to rebuild our lives."
McDonnell, a Republican, was accused of using his office to help Jonnie Williams Sr., who had provided the McDonnells with luxury products, loans and vacations worth more than $175,000 when McDonnell was governor. The gifts themselves were legal, and the question in the case was whether they were part of a corrupt bargain in which McDonnell reciprocated by using the power of his office to help Williams.
McDonnell arranged meetings for and attended events with his benefactor. But Williams, whose company made a diet supplement, did not have any real success in obtaining support for his product from the state. A jury found that McDonnell's actions amounted to corruption, and a federal appeals court upheld the conviction.
Last year, the Supreme Court allowed McDonnell to stay out of prison while the court considered whether to hear his case, McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474. Despite the unanimous ruling, Roberts stopped well short of endorsing McDonnell's actions Monday.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," the chief justice wrote. "But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court."
In their briefs to the Supreme Court, McDonnell's lawyers relied on the Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, in which the Supreme Court said that "ingratiation and access" were "not corruption." That year, the court ruled in favor of a former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling, saying that a federal anti-corruption law governing "honest services" applied only to bribes and kickbacks.
Roberts' opinion did not address Citizens United or the First Amendment argument on which it was based. But he did say that proof of something akin to bribery was required in corruption prosecutions.
"Of course," he added, "this is not to say that setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or making a phone call is always an innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a phone call on a question or matter that is or could be pending before another official, that could serve as evidence of an agreement to take an official act.
"A jury could conclude, for example, that the official was attempting to pressure or advise another official on a pending matter," Roberts wrote. "And if the official agreed to exert that pressure or give that advice in exchange for a thing of value, that would be illegal."
Gun law upheld
Also Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bars people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from owning guns.
The justices rejected arguments that the law covers only intentional or knowing acts of abuse and not those committed recklessly -- where a person is aware of the risk that an act will cause injury, but not certain it will. As examples, the court mentioned throwing a plate in the heat of an argument, or slamming a door.
The case involved two Maine men who said their guilty pleas for hitting their partners should not disqualify them from gun ownership.
Writing for herself and five other justices, Justice Elena Kagan said that Congress enacted the gun law about 20 years ago to close a loophole and "prohibit domestic abusers convicted under run-of-the-mill misdemeanor assault and battery laws from possessing guns." She said that if the law were read to exclude misdemeanors in which a person acted recklessly, it would "substantially undermine the provision's design."
Gun-rights groups had argued that Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III should not lose their constitutional right to bear arms, while advocates for victims of domestic abuse pushed to preserve the restriction.
The Supreme Court also agreed Monday to decide whether Republican lawmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew North Carolina's congressional districts to give the GOP an advantage in the swing state.
The justices will hear the case in the fall, most likely too late to affect November's elections. But in the years ahead, it could affect partisan efforts to create electoral districts aimed at swaying the balance of power in Congress and in state legislatures.
North Carolina's GOP leaders deny factoring in race to an illegal extent, saying their 2011 map was designed primarily to give Republicans an edge while complying with the federal Voting Rights Act after the 2010 census.
"We continue to believe the maps are fair, legal and constitutional and look forward to our day in court," state Sen. Bob Rucho, a chief architect of the maps, said Monday.
Additionally, the Supreme Court declined a request by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to overturn his corruption conviction and 28-year prison sentence.
Kilpatrick's request was made after a federal appeals court said in October that it had no interest in taking a second look at the case.
In 2013, Kilpatrick was found guilty of tax evasion and bribery. His appeal centered on what he said was a conflict among his trial attorneys, among other technical reasons. He quit office in another scandal in 2008 and is in federal prison.
Information for this article was contributed by Adam Liptak of The New York Times and by Jessica Gresko, Jonathan Drew, Gary D. Robertson and staff members of The Associated Press.
A Section on 06/28/2016