Snyder v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Snyder v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Snyder v. United States.
The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of James Snyder, former mayor of Portage, Indiana, for accepting an illegal gratuity under 18 U.S.C. § 666. Snyder was convicted for receiving a $13,000 payment from a truck company after the city awarded contracts to the company. The Court examined whether § 666 criminalizes only bribery or also includes gratuities. The Court concluded that § 666 is a bribery statute, not a gratuities statute, reversing the Seventh Circuit's decision.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Snyder v. United States.
The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 666 is a bribery statute and does not criminalize the acceptance of gratuities by state and local officials.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Snyder v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Federalism is relevant to Snyder v. United States
The case discusses the division of regulatory power between federal and state governments regarding bribery and gratuities.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Interpreting § 666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to Snyder v. United States
The case involves issues of fair notice and the clarity of criminal statutes, which are related to due process rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Government's so-called guidance would leave state and local officials entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under federal law.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Snyder v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.
The statutory text strongly suggests that § 666—like § 201(b)—is a bribery statute, not a gratuities statute.
Interpreting § 666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles.