Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

22 

SNYDER v. UNITED STATES 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

and further complained below that “Congress ha[d] yet to 
take  up”  any  invitation  “to  consider  rewriting  the  provi-
sion.” App. 15.  Fortunately for him, today’s decision by this
Court accomplishes exactly that result. 

* 

* 

* 
State,  local,  and  tribal  governments  have  an  important
role to play in combating public corruption, and, of course, 
their regulations should reflect the values of the communi-
ties they serve.  I wholeheartedly agree with the majority’s
suggestion  that,  because  employees  of  those  governments 
are  our  neighbors,  friends,  and  hometown  heroes,  federal
law ought not be read to subject them to prosecution when 
grateful members of the community show their thanks.  See 
ante, at 1. 

But nothing about the facts of this case implicates any of 
that kind of conduct.  And the text of §666 clearly covers the 
kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment
Snyder solicited after steering the city contracts to the deal-
ership.  Because  reading  §666  to  prohibit  gratuities—just
as it always has—poses no genuine threat to common gift
giving, but does honor Congress’s intent to punish rewards 
corruptly accepted by government officials in ways that are 
functionally  indistinguishable  from  taking  a  bribe,  I  re-
spectfully dissent.