Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 40

18 

SNYDER v. UNITED STATES 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

because of which it was given” (emphasis added)); McDon-
nell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 571–572 (2016) (clari-
fying the “official act” requirement in §201(a)(3)).  Instead, 
the majority washes its hands of this anticorruption provi-
sion, announcing that certain wrongful conduct the statute 
plainly covers just cannot be included.  The majority throws 
in the towel too soon. 

C 
As  I  said  earlier,  §666  already  provides  meaningful
guardrails that protect against the “overbreadth” that the
majority decries.  Ante, at 12.  But you don’t have to take 
my word for that.  Other prosecutions of gratuities that the
Government  has  brought  under  §666—successfully  or  un-
successfully—do  not  remotely  resemble  the  holiday  tips, 
gift  baskets,  and  sweatshirts  around  which  the  majority 
crafts its decision.9  That is, even as the Government has 
consistently maintained that §666 covers gratuities, its ac-
tual prior prosecutions under §666 were not the dragnet for 
public  school  teachers,  soccer  coaches,  or  trash  collectors 
that the majority conjures.  Rather, the real cases in which 
the  Government  has  invoked  this  law  involve  exactly  the 

—————— 

9 See, e.g., Scarantino v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Bd., 68 
A.  3d  375,  376–377  (Pa.  Commw.  2013)  (describing  a  defendant  prose-
cuted under §666 for receiving a $5,000 cash gratuity in connection with
school district contracts); United States v. Musto, 2012 WL 5879609, *2, 
n. 2  (MD  Pa., Nov.  21,  2012)  (defendant  prosecuted  under  §666  for  ac-
cepting  $1,000  in  connection  with  a  municipality’s  multimillion  dollar 
loan  application  to  a  state  agency  and  prior  official  advocacy);  United 
States v. Bahel, 662 F. 3d 610, 620–621, 638 (CA2 2011) (defendant pros-
ecuted  under  §666  after  receiving  financial  benefits  including  years  of 
near-monthly cash payments of thousands of dollars, a laptop, first-class 
plane tickets to India, seats to the U. S. Open tennis tournament, a re-
duced-rent apartment, and the eventual purchase of that apartment for
below-market  value  in  connection  with  United  Nations  contracts); 
United States v. Zimmermann, 509 F. 3d 920, 926–927 (CA8 2007) (de-
fendant prosecuted for accepting gratuities of $5,000, $1,200, and $1,000
in connection with real-estate development projects).