Today, in Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court leaned into federalism principles in declining to extend the federal bribery statute that applies to state and local officials to after-the-fact gratuities. The Court highlighted the 19 million state and local officials that would be subjected to a 10-year federal sentence for accepting innocuous gifts if it ruled otherwise. This case concerns the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §666, which makes it unlawful for a state or local official to "corruptly" solicit, accept, or agree to accept "anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded" for an official act. §666(a)(1)(B). The statue carries a 10-year prison sentence. It is undisputed that the law applies to bribes, which are payments that are either made or agreed before an official act in order to influence that act. The question in the case is whether the statute also applies to gratuities for past official acts, which the Court defines as "payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation." In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court concluded that while gratuities can be problematic, unethical, and even illegal under state or local law, §666 does not make accepting a gratuity a crime for state and local officials for six independent reasons. Those are the "statute's text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice." In terms of federalism, the Court highlighted that state and local governments across the country have taken different approaches to the regulation of gratuities for their officials. Some bar gratuities over a certain threshold, while others bar only gifts for particular activities. Some states make accepting a gratuity a misdemeanor while others make it a felony. And some local governments prohibit gifts from businesses bidding for work with the government while others prohibit gifts from those doing business with the government. In finding that §666 does not apply to gratuities, the Court reasoned in part that the "carefully calibrated policy decisions that the States and local governments have made about gratuities would be gutted if we were to accept the Government's interpretation of §666." The Court further explained that the Court should hesitate in concluding that Congress intended to "override state and local governments on such core matters of state and local governance." Many of the Court's examples highlighted the problems with notice and fairness to state and local officials should the federal government's interpretation prevail. The Court provided one example of a county official seeking to follow local county gratuity rules who declines a $200 gift card but accepts a $100 gift card from a neighbor as a thank you for work on a new park and how this official would face up to 10 years in prison even though she abided by the county's rules. In terms of punishment and statutory structure, the Court stressed that the laws that apply to federal officials separate bribery from gratuities and apply a lesser penalty for gratuities. The Court noted it is unlikely that Congress would have authorized punishing state and local officials five times more harshly than federal officials for the same crime given the aforementioned federalism concerns. To read the decision, click here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.