Today, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the breadth of the federal “honest services” law that is so often used against public officials and even corporate executives in corruption cases.
The gist of the honest services law is that, as Justice Antonin Scalia put it last year, “officeholders and employees owe a duty to act only in the best interests of their constituents and employers,” and that intentionally failing to provide those services is a crime. (Scalia isn’t a big fan of that law, as you’ll see.)
The court ruled on three honest services cases today: two involving corporate heavyweights Jeffrey Skilling (Enron) and Conrad Black (publishing) and one involving Alaska lawmaker Bruce Weyhrauch, who was convicted because he failed to disclose that he was negotiating for a job with an oil company at the same time the state legislature was considering a bill that would affect that company.
In today’s decision (PDF), the court ruled unanimously that the honest-services law is not appropriate in federal prosecutions unless evidence is presented that the defendants were offered (or received) bribes or kickbacks. The justices vacated all three convictions and ordered them to be heard again in appellate courts. (Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy said they would declare the entire honest-services law unconstitutional.)
I’ve only skimmed the opinion, and I’m no lawyer, but my quick take on its relevance to the ongoing investigation of former Gov. Mike Easley: It probably makes no difference, especially because Easley has not been indicted. Prosecutors can recast any potential indictment with an eye on today’s decision.
The 25-percent discount Easley received at closing for the lot he purchased at the coastal Cannonsgate development easily could be portrayed as a kickback to developers who were reportedly using Easley’s name as a marketing tool to sell lots.
The governor’s access to free cars and flights also could be seen as kickbacks if the donors had business before state government.
So while today’s ruling may make it more difficult to prosecute corruption cases where there’s little obvious evidence of shenanigans, it hardly means that the Easley team has reason to relax.
Read Carolina Journal’s full archive of all things Easley here.
