First, in Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. ---, (2020), the Supreme Court vacated the defendants' convictions in the "Bridgegate" scandal. This was the case in which several NJ officials rerouted several lanes of traffic to the George Washington Bridge to punish a local democratic mayor for not supporting Governor Christie's reelection.
In short, the Court concluded that, because the state officials' actions were not aimed at securing public money or property, they had not committed a federal crime. In other words, "a state or local official’s fraudulent schemes violate that law only when, again, they are 'for obtaining money or property.'" Some of the key language is below:
- The federal wire fraud statute makes it a crime to effect (with use of the wires) “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U. S. C. §1343. Construing that disjunctive language as a unitary whole, this Court has held that “the money-orproperty requirement of the latter phrase” also limits the former. The wire fraud statute thus prohibits only deceptive “schemes to deprive [the victim of] money or property.” Similarly, the federal-program fraud statute bars “obtain[ing] by fraud” the “property” (including money) of a federally funded program or entity like the Port Authority. §666(a)(1)(A). So under either provision, the Government had to show not only that Baroni and Kelly engaged in deception, but that an “object of the[ir] fraud [was] ‘property.’” Cleveland v. United States, 531 U. S. 12, 26 (2000). That requirement, this Court has made clear, prevents these statutes from criminalizing all acts of dishonesty by state and local officials.
- this Court has already held that a scheme to alter such a regulatory choice is not one to appropriate the government’s property.
- Contrary to the Government’s view, the two defendants did not “commandeer” the Bridge’s access lanes (supposing that word bears its normal meaning). They (of course) did not walk away with the lanes; nor did they take the lanes from the Government by converting them to a non-public use. Rather, Baroni and Kelly regulated use of the lanes, as officials responsible for roadways so often do—allocating lanes as between different groups of drivers.
- a property fraud conviction cannot stand when the loss to the victim is only an incidental byproduct of the scheme
- not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime. Because the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property, Baroni and Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Second, in United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. ---, (2020), the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, which held that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) (encouraging or inducing an alien to enter or remain illegally) is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.
This case is interesting because it was NOT a ruling on the merits. Rather, the Supreme Court reversed because the Ninth Circuit panel decided the case on an issue not presented by the parties. The Supreme Court held: "the appeals panel departed so drastically from the
principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of
discretion."
That means, the merits of the First Amendment issue are still in play for current and future cases to litigate.
