Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

5 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

of  the  term  “influenced”  captures  quid  pro  quo  bargains
struck  before  an  official  act  is  taken—and  therefore 
bribes—as everyone  agrees.    Brief  for  Petitioner  17;  Brief 
for United States 21; cf. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 404– 
405.  The term “rewarded” easily covers the concept of gra-
tuities  paid  to  corrupt  officials  after  the  fact—no  upfront 
agreement necessary.

As  a  general  matter  (and  setting  aside  for  the  moment
that §666 covers only officials who act “corruptly”), every-
one knows what a reward is.  It is a $20 bill pulled from a
lost wallet at the time of its return to its grateful owner.  A 
surprise ice cream outing after a report card with straight 
As.  The bar tab picked up by a supervisor celebrating a job
well done by her team.  A reward often says “thank you” or 
“good job,” rather than “please.”
  Dictionary definitions confirm what common sense tells 
us  about  what  it  means  to  be  rewarded.  A  “reward”  is 
“[t]hat which is given in return for good or evil done or re-
ceived,” including “that which is offered or given for some 
service or attainment.”  Webster’s New International Dic-
tionary 2136 (2d ed. 1957).  The verb form of the word is no 
different.  To  “reward”  means  “to  . . .  recompense.”  Ibid. 
(defining “to reward” as “[t]o make a return, or give a re-
ward, to (a person) or for (a service, etc.); to requite; recom-
pense; repay”).  Both definitions thus encompass payment
in recognition of an action that an official has already taken
or committed to taking.  And neither requires there to be 
some  beforehand  agreement  about  that  exchange,  i.e.,  a 
quid pro quo. 

Snyder concedes that the term “rewarded” can encompass
the  concept  of  gratuities.  See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  5;  see  also 
Reply  Brief  3  (quoting  Sun-Diamond,  526  U. S.,  at  405).
The majority—which doesn’t bother to interpret “rewarded”
until  the  end  of  its  opinion—eventually  admits  the  same.
See  ante,  at  15  (“[T]he  word  ‘rewarded’  could  be  part  of  a 
gratuities statute”).  By that point in its analysis, however,