The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously decided to throw out former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s corruption convictions, after finding that McDonnell’s actions did not go far enough to constitute corruption under federal law.
“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.
The court’s ruling means that McDonnell’s convictions were “vacated” or thrown out, although the federal government may still try him a second time.
The case was nevertheless a blow to the Justice Department, which had argued that McDonnell committed five “official acts” on behalf of a donor, and that those acts constituted corrupt actions on his part. McDonnell’s lawyers argued that they were not in fact official acts because the governor never changed state policy or pressured others in his administration to do so.
The decision boiled down to whether McDonnell took any “official act” after receiving perks from a businessman, and the ruling argued that he never did.
The majority wrote, “An ‘official act’ … must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is ‘pending’ or ‘may by law be brought’ before a public official. To qualify as an ‘official act,’ the public official must make a decision or take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event — without more — does not fit that definition of ‘official act.'”
The governor was convicted in 2014 of 11 corruption charges related to accepting more than $100,000 in gifts from a Virginia businessman, Jonnie Williams, who wanted state universities to conduct testing of a dietary supplement he had developed. The testing was needed for Food and Drug Administration approval. Williams lavished gifts on McDonnell and his wife Maureen McDonnell in the hopes of getting the help he wanted.
Among other indulgences, Williams provided the couple with paid golf outings and the use of his Ferrari sports car. He also bought airline tickets for two of the McDonnells’ daughters to go to a bachelorette party in Savannah, Ga. When Maureen McDonnell requested a Rolex watch for her husband with “71st Governor of Virginia” engraved on it, Williams complied.
In return, McDonnell publicly promoted Williams’ supplement, suggested that state health officials look into using it, and even held an event at the governor’s mansion where Williams could meet with those officials. The case hinged on whether McDonnell’s actions on Williams’ behalf were corrupt even though the governor never required any state official to help Williams.
But the state universities ultimately never took up the testing and the supplement was never included in the state health plan. Even the Justice Department’s own brief to the Supreme Court described Williams as “furious” over the lack of action.
Once one of the GOP’s rising stars, McDonnell was indicted in January 2014, shortly after he left office, after revelations of his dealings with Williams. Maureen McDonnell who was convicted on eight counts of corruption in 2014. McDonnell’s leaving office was not related to the charges. Virginia does not allow governors to serve consecutive terms.
During oral arguments in the case in April, McDonnell’s lawyers said that the governor was merely helping out a constituent, and that the Justice Department’s position would make any elected representative’s actions on behalf of a supporter potentially illegal. Justice Department lawyers countered that McDonnell’s actions went far beyond ordinary constituent service.
Most of the Justices seemed wary of the broad definition of “official act” used by DOJ’s lawyers, and liberal Justice Stephen Breyer expressed the strongest skepticism. He seemed particularly disturbed by the government’s refusal to draw a clear line on what constitutes “quid pro quo” bribery.
“What is the lower limit, in the government’s opinion, on the quid? Tell us right now,” Breyer said.
