Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

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

11 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

at 9. 

In short, Congress tailored §215 in an effort to stem “ ‘cor-
ruption in the bank industry,’ ” and it seemed to think that 
both  bribes  and  gratuities  contributed  to  that  problem.
H. R. Rep. No. 99–335, at 5.  So, too, with §666 and public 
corruption. 

III 
To recap what we know thus far: The question in this case 
is  whether  §666  criminalizes  gratuities  in  addition  to 
bribes.  The text and purpose of §666 alone provide an easy 
answer.  The word “rewarded” means to have been given a
reward for some action taken.  So gratuities are plainly cov-
ered.  To be sure, if the Court had given that straightfor-
ward  answer,  we  might  eventually  have  confronted  a  fol-
lowup  question:  Are  all  gratuities  covered? 
Said 
differently: Even if gratuities generally are criminalized by
§666,  are  there  circumstances  in  which  certain  gratuities 
are not criminalized? 

The case in front of us does not require us to reach that
question.  We  have  not  been  asked  to  settle, once  and  for 
all, which gratuities are corrupt and which are quotidian. 
Snyder  did  not  argue  that  his  $13,000  check  was  part  of
some subset of noncriminalized gratuities.  Rather (and this
is  important  to  note),  Snyder  has  taken  an  all-or-nothing
approach to the argument he makes in this case.  He insists 
that all gratuities—every type in the entire class—are ex-
cluded from §666.  Because the statute’s plain text says oth-
erwise, that should have been the end of this case, even if a 
future petitioner might have asked us to do a more nuanced 
analysis.

But,  no  matter—the  majority  today  skips  ahead,  com-
plaining that the Government has “not identif[ied] any re-
motely clear lines separating an innocuous or obviously be-
nign gratuity from a criminal gratuity.”  Ante, at 12.  This 
omission  is  a  huge  problem,  the  majority  says,  because