Document: 541 U.S. 600 SABRIv.UNITED STATES. No. 03-44. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 3, 2004. Decided May 17, After petitioner Sabri offered three separate bribes to a Minneapolis councilman facilitate construction in the city, was charged with violating 18 U. S. C. § 666(a)(2), which proscribes bribery state and local officials entities, such as Minneapolis, that receive at least $10,000 federal funds. Before trial, moved dismiss indictment on ground 666(a)(2) is unconstitutional its face for failure require proof connection between funds alleged bribe, an element liability. The District agreed, but Eighth Circuit reversed, holding absence express requirement not fatal, statute constitutional under Constitution's Necessary Proper Clause serving objects congressional spending power. Held: Section valid exercise Congress's Article I authority. Pp. 604-610. (a) Sabri's "facial" challenge must, offense, money readily rejected. This does presume unconstitutionality all criminal statutes from explicit jurisdictional hook, there no occasion even consider need where reason suspect enforcing would extend beyond legitimate interest cognizable I, 8. Congress has Spending authority appropriate moneys promote general welfare, Art. 8, cl. 1, corresponding authority, 18, assure taxpayer dollars appropriated power are fact spent rather than frittered away graft or upon projects undermined by graft. See, e. g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. have accept risk getting poor performance money, owing administrators' improbity. id., 417. addresses problem sources bribes, rational means, safeguard integrity dollar recipients. Although every bribe paid covered government agents will be traceably skimmed specific payments, found guise quid pro quo some dereliction grant, these facts do portend enforcement scope interest, simple corruption so limited order affect interest. Money fungible, bribed untrustworthy stewards funds, corrupt contractors deliver dollar-for-dollar value. It enough condition offense threshold amount defining provided here. legislative history confirms instance necessary proper legislation. Neither arguments against 666(a)(2)'s constitutionality helps him. First, his claim 666 piece legislation ruled States Lopez, 514 549, Morrison, 529 598, unavailing because precedents control In them, struck down regulating gun possession near schools gender-motivated violence, respectively, it effects those activities interstate commerce insufficiently robust. Here, contrast, within prerogative ensure menaced administrators take. Cf. supra, 561. Second, contrary argument, unduly coercive, impermissibly sweeping, grant bring bear directly individuals who convert public into unearned private gain. South Dakota Dole, 483 203, distinguished. 604-608. (b) disapproves technique challenging facial attack underlying statute. If making any substantive claim, had seen over-breadth challenge; most he could seriously say enforced him, someone else whose behavior outside legislate. Facial challenges this sort discouraged they invite judgments fact-poor records entail departure norms federal-court adjudication calling relaxation familiar standing requirements allow determination law unconstitutionally applied different parties circumstances hand. Chicago Morales, 527 41, 55-56, n. 22. Thus, recognized validity attacks alleging overbreadth (though necessarily using term) relatively few settings, and, generally, only strength reason, free speech, weighty overcome Court's well-founded reticence. Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601. 608-610. 326 F. 3d 937, affirmed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined, KENNEDY SCALIA, joined Part III. KENNEDY, filed concurring part, post, p. 610. THOMAS, judgment, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Andrew Birrell argued cause petitioner. With him briefs were R. Travis Snider Aaron D. Van Oort. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben brief Olson, Assistant Attorney Wray, Jeffrey A. Lamken, P. Singdahlsen.* JUSTICE SOUTER Court. 1 question whether proscribing state, local, tribal entities Constitution. We hold is. 2 * Petitioner Basim Omar real estate developer proposed build hotel retail structure city Minneapolis. lacked confidence, however, ability adapt lawful administration licensing zoning laws, councilman, Brian Herron, according grand jury gave rise case. At time allegedly (between July 2001), Herron served member Board Commissioners Community Development Agency (MCDA), body created council fund housing economic development city. App. Pet. Cert. A-64 A-65. 3 Count offering $5,000 kickback obtaining various regulatory approvals, ibid., 2, set up attend meeting owners land site mind, threaten use city's eminent domain seize their property if troublesome Sabri, A-65 A-66. commission 10% $800,000 community grants sought MCDA, other sources. Id., charges brought imposes penalties anyone 5 "corruptly gives, offers, agrees give anything value person, intent influence reward agent organization State, Indian government, agency thereof, business, transaction, series transactions organization, involving more." 6 For liability lie, requires 7 "the receiv[e], one year period, benefits excess Federal program contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, form assistance." 666(b). 8 2001, City Council administered about $29 million same MCDA received $23 money. A-63. 9 A-4. Government responded "even additional nexus conduct required, evidence case easily meet standard" actions related dollars. A-6. did contradict factual agreed facially invalid. A divided panel nothing fatal prove given federally pedigreed dollars, 937 (2003). Judge Bye dissented out concern implications dual sovereignty. 953-957. 10 granted certiorari, 540 944 (2003), resolve split among Courts Appeals over forbidden funds; compare, Grossi, 143 348 (CA7 1998) (no requirement), Lipscomb, 299 303 (CA5 2002) (same), Zwick, 199 672 (CA3 1999) (nexus Santopietro, 166 88 (CA2 (same). now affirm. II 11 raises what calls 666(a)(2): can never constitutionally fails sees it, make link crime, demonstrated reasonable doubt. claims meets demanding standard Salerno, 481 739, 745 (1987), since says prosecution satisfy Constitution statute, particular application falls jurisdiction See Tr. Oral Arg. 12 ("This cannot properly case"). dispose position that, qualify power, must offense. simply lacking provision 13 Clause, see when siphoned off officers derelict generally 316 (1819) (establishing review means-ends rationality Clause). also Hodel Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 264, 276 (1981) (same); Hanna Plumer, 380 460, 472 (1965) sit operations thwarted McCulloch, 417 (power "`establish post-offices post-roads'" entails "punish steal letters"). recipients 14 true, just says, governments 666(b) show grant. Salinas States, 522 52, 56-57 (1997) (The "expansive, unqualified" language "does support interpretation affected violate 666(a)(1)(B)"). But possibility portends Liquidity financial term nothing; drained here pouring there. And less threatening behind may retainers. Westfall 274 256, 259 (1927) (majority Holmes, J.) (upholding criminalizing fraud bank system, implicated). certainly 15 us help history, worth noting record design "protect vast sums distributed through programs theft, fraud, undue bribery," Rep. 98-225, 370 (1983), contrast prior affording two opportunities prosecute threats interest: 641, theft 201, law. Those laws proven inadequate task. former went outright unadulterated Dixson 465 482 (1984), came after passage 666, been interpreted lower courts bar directed officials. Del Toro, 513 2d 656, 661-663 1975) (overturning conviction); Salinas, S., 58-59 (recounting limitations pre-existing statutory framework). Thus we said "was designed prohibitions employed agencies receiving funds," 58, thereby filling gaps. decision enact failed protect interests further indication acting ambit Clause. 16 presses more neither majority held exceed Commerce 549 (1995), 598 (2000). Lopez emphasized noneconomic nature regulated conduct, commenting issue example, "that terms [it] `commerce' enterprise, however broadly might define terms." rejected Government's contentions guns ultimately bore social prosperity productivity, reasoning logic, effectively know limit. 615-616 (rejecting comparable justification Violence Against Women Act 1994). uphold legislation, concluded, "to pile inference manner bid fair police retained States." 567. 17 No piling needed menace keep watchful eye expenditures reliability bound spend first place, hard pressed words "has with" next argues amounts judged criterion 203 (1987). so. gain, means bringing State's own choices policy.* III 19 add afterword begin recalling best infrequent. Raines, 362 22 (1960) (laws should invalidated "reference hypothetical cases"); Yazoo Mississippi Valley Co. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 217, 219-220 (1912) passing wholesale efficient abstract, gain often offset losing lessons taught particular, common method normally looks. carries too much promise "premature interpretatio[n] statutes" basis factually barebones records. 20 As exemplified here, carry skeptical approach district avoid. able call strictest sense saying constitutional, claiming course true all. peeled away, obvious acts himself well limits concern. correspondingly clear 21 especially discouraged. Not records, courts: relaxing standing, (1999) (plurality opinion). Accordingly, reasons our 601 (1973) (free speech); Aptheker Secretary 378 500 (1964) (right travel); Stenberg Carhart, 530 914, 938-946 (2000) (abortion); Boerne Flores, 521 507, 532-535 (legislation Fourteenth Amendment). Fallon, As-Applied Challenges Third-Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1321, 1351 (emphasizing role doctrinal tests determining viability attack); Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981 Ct. 24 (observing function First Amendment law). Outside absent good invitation claims. IV remand proceedings consistent opinion. judgment 23 Affirmed. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Cato Institute Gary Lawson, Robert Levy, Timothy Lynch; National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Joshua Dratel, Richard Greenberg, W. Garnett. enacting addressed area historically upholding law, mean view soundness policy matter whom SCALIA joins, part. 25 join comment reference it. specifically practice followed cases instances basic Congress, challenged there, exceeded 26 judgment. 27 Title Congress' regulate commerce, precedent. Perez 402 146, 154 (1971). continue doubt correctly 627 (THOMAS, concurring); 584-585 (1995) concurring). until reconsiders precedents, party requests controls outcome 28 write find questionable gives spend. appears authorizes "rational means" effectuate enumerated powers. Ante, 605. conclusion derives characterization seminal (1819), having established "means-ends rationality" test, ante, 605, am certain correct. 29 faced incorporate national bank. forced navigate extreme "absolute necessity" advocated State Wheat., 387 (argument counsel), "clog embarrass" execution powers "by withholding execution, 408, extreme, destroy Framers' purpose establishing powers, 423; cf. Gibbons Ogden, 194-195 (1824). speaking Chief Justice Marshall, carefully refuted Maryland's test. "It intention insure, far human prudence beneficial execution," stated; "[t]his done confiding choice narrow leave adopt appropriate, conducive end." 415. opined render "a splendid bauble" right legislate mass incidental involved constitution" Congress. 421. 30 then conclude unrestricted Government. ibid. ("[T]he limited, . transcended"). Rather, forth following test: 31 "Let end legitimate, let constitution, plainly adapted end, prohibited, consist letter spirit constitutional." Ibid.1 32 "[A]ppropriate" "plainly adapted" hardly synonymous "means-end rationality." Indeed, "plain" "evident mind senses: OBVIOUS," "CLEAR," "characterized simplicity: complicated." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 898 (1991); N. Webster, American English Language (1828) (facsimile edition) (defining "plainly" "[i]n comprehended," "[e]vidently; clearly; obscurely"). "rational" without being obviously clearly tied To then, seemingly means," end; rather, seem obvious, simple, direct relation Writings James Madison 448 (G. Hunt ed. 1908). 33 Under formulation, doubts states "organization, [that] receives, program," 666(b), person 34 [such] more," 35 commits crime. All apply receives kind, entity regarding substantial transaction entity. whatsoever shown. 36 not-wholly-unconvincing job tying broad programs. 605-606. "[m]oney fungible," 606, instance, explain how "prosecut[ing] meat inspector parks department $10,000," 88, 93 1999). difficult describe chain inferences assumptions indulge connect protection. And, example many protecting equally attenuated, yet expansive 666(a)(2). Overall, funded kind perpetrated individual happens welfare benefits.2 37 Because decide jurisprudence, combined authorize enactment regardless correct seems greatly improperly expand reach concur recently used very similar formulation describing test InJinks Richland County, 538 456 upheld 1367(d) concluding both "conducive to" "power constitute Tribunals inferior supreme Court," end. 462, 464 (internal quotation marks omitted). Criminalizing (by otherwise) embezzlement themselves fits comfortably SeeUnited Hall, 98 343 (1879) (embezzlement soldier's pension).

Category: 9