Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 765

529US3

Unit: $U55

[09-26-01 13:01:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN

690

FISCHER v. UNITED STATES

Thomas, J., dissenting

B

Although the Court disclaims the Government’s argument
that “beneﬁts” means only funds provided under a federal
assistance program, the Court, in practice, adopts it. The
Court’s expansive rationale could be applied to any federal
assistance program that provides funds to any organization.
This result is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the stat-
ute.
If Congress had meant to apply § 666 to any organiza-
tion that receives “funds” totaling more than $10,000 per
annum, it would have said so. Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 665 (“Who-
ever, being . . . connected in any capacity with any agency
or organization receiving ﬁnancial assistance or any funds
under [a certain federal program] knowingly enrolls an ineli-
gible participant, embezzles, willfully misapplies, steals, or
obtains by fraud any of the moneys, funds, assets, or prop-
erty which are the subject of a ﬁnancial assistance agree-
ment or contract pursuant to such Act shall be [punished]”).
Congress, for that matter, could have omitted the word “ben-
eﬁts” from the statute and provided simply that any organi-
zation that “receives, in any one year period, in excess of
$10,000 under a Federal program involving a . . . form of
federal assistance” is covered by the statute. That Con-
gress did not do so suggests that the word “beneﬁts” has a

projects or programs.” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 207 (1987)
(internal quotation marks omitted). See id., at 213 (O’Connor, J., dis-
senting). Arguably, if Congress attempted to criminalize acts of theft or
bribery based solely on the fact that—in circumstances unrelated to the
theft or bribery—the victim organization received federal funds as pay-
ment for a market transaction, this constitutional requirement would not
be satisﬁed. Without a jurisdictional provision that would ensure that in
each case the exercise of federal power is related to the federal interest
in a federal program, § 666 would criminalize routine acts of fraud or brib-
ery, which, as the Court admits, would “upse[t] the proper federal bal-
ance.” Ante, at 681. Cf. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 561 (1995)
(“[Section] 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure,
through case-by-case inquiry, that the ﬁrearm possession in question af-
fects interstate commerce”).