Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 43

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

21 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

the courts of appeals first interpreted §666 to cover gratui-
ties, reading the statute to do so now will “suddenly subject 
19  million  state  and  local  officials  to  a  new  and  different 
regulatory regime.”  Ante, at 11. 

IV 
Ultimately, it appears that the real bone the majority has
to  pick  with  §666  is  its  concern  about  overregulation—a
concern born of the relationship between federal and state 
governance.  The majority’s pages of citations to state and 
local gratuities laws, ante, at 2–3, thus belie its ranking so-
called  “federalism”  interests  merely  “[f]ifth”  on  its  list  of
reasons for construing §666 as a bribery-only statute, ante, 
at  10  (emphasis  deleted).    More  than  anything,  it  seems
that the majority itself harbors the belief it repeatedly as-
cribes to Congress: that regulation of gratuities is better left
to state, local, and tribal governments, rather than the Fed-
eral  Government.  See,  e.g.,  ante,  at  11,  16.  (No  word  on
why the same could not be said for bribes.) 

If  Congress  shared  those  policy  concerns,  however,  it
chose not to act upon them in this statute.  Instead, Con-
gress reached out to regulate state, local, and tribal entities 
as  well  as  other  organizations  that  receive  federal  funds, 
despite the fact that those governments do have their own
ethics  regulations,  as  the  majority  is  quick  to  point  out. 
And,  of  course,  if  the majority  is  correct  about  Congress’s
commitment to federalism principles in this area, one won-
ders why Congress didn’t just leave state, local, and tribal 
entities alone. 

Quite  to  the  contrary,  Congress  chose  to  enact  §666  “to
ensure  the  integrity  of  organizations  participating  in  fed-
eral assistance programs.”  Fischer, 529 U. S., at 678.  And 
that choice was intentional—Congress acted to “addres[s] a
legitimate federal concern by licensing federal prosecution
in an area historically of state concern.”  Sabri, 541 U. S., 
at 608, n.  Snyder apparently objects to this policy choice,