Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

SNYDER v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

Government  says  that  Congress  would  not  have  added  the  term 
“rewarded” to “influenced” in §666 if the statute were meant to cover 
only bribes and not also gratuities.  That argument is misconceived. 
Contrary  to  the  premise  of  the  Government’s  argument,  bribery 
statutes sometimes use the term “reward.”  See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §600; 
33 U. S. C. §447.  Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, an
official might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the 
payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not 
have “influenced” the act.  By including the term “rewarded,” Congress
made clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timing
of payment.  Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a 
state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal
under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate
§666.  Pp. 14–16. 

71 F. 4th 555, reversed and remanded. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  GORSUCH, 
J., filed a concurring opinion.  JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in 
which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.