Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

9 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local offi-
cials” without federal guidance).

Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the
scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress 
made  major  changes  to  §666  that  might  account  for  the 
sans-gratuity  interpretation  the  majority  adopts  today.
But several features of the statutory and legislative history 
convince me of the opposite.

For  one,  Congress  said  that  it  was  not  making  major
changes  to  the  statute.    The  1986  revisions  to  §666  were 
part  of  a  package  of  changes  that  Congress  specifically 
deemed “technical and minor.”  H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 16
(1986);  see  also  Criminal  Law  and  Procedure  Technical 
Amendments Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3592.  And the revisions 
themselves  are  largely  in  keeping  with  this  characteriza-
tion.  Relevant here, Congress teased out a “corruptly” mens 
rea requirement and swapped the previous “for or because
of ” language for the current “intending to be influenced or 
rewarded” phrasing.  Id., at 3613.  None of this, on its face, 
evinces clear congressional intent to extract an entire cate-
gory of previously covered illicit payments from §666.

Undeterred,  the  majority  says  that  when  Congress
amended §666, it was attempting to fashion that provision
after §201(b)—the bribery statute that covers federal offi-
cials.  See ante, at 8–9.2  Again, the statutory and legislative 
record suggests otherwise: In fact, history establishes that
Congress had a different model statute in mind.

Congress had used a phrase identical to §666’s “intending
to be influenced or rewarded” language just a few months
before when it amended 18 U. S. C. §215, an anticorruption
statute that applies to bank employees.  See 100 Stat. 779. 

—————— 

2 Section 201(b)(2)(A) imposes federal criminal penalties on “[w]hoever 
. . . being a public official . . . corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts,
or agrees to receive or accept anything of value . . . in return for . . . being 
influenced in the performance of any official act.”