Supreme Court Once Again Rejects Expansive DOJ Interpretation Of Criminal Law
This type of post has appeared on these pages numerous times.
Even though the current Supreme Court is often ideologically divided, the Court has shown remarkable consistency in recent years in rejecting overly expansive interpretations of a federal criminal statute by the Department of Justice.
This week’s decision in Thompson v. U.S. was just the latest example.
The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, was unanimous.
Supreme Court Once Again Rejects The DOJ’s Expansive Interpretation Of Criminal Law
Over the past approximate decade, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions regarding the scope of federal criminal statutes – including in the general bribery context – and the results are often unfavorable to the Department of Justice.
This prior post highlighted the decision last week in Snyder v. U.S. in which the Supreme Court rejected the DOJ’s expansive interpretation of a federal criminal statute for at least six reasons.
Last week, the Supreme Court also rejected the DOJ’s expansive interpretation of a federal criminal statute in Fischer v. U.S.
The Supreme Court’s Consistency In Rejecting Expansive DOJ Interpretations
A post of this nature has appeared on these pages numerous times.
Even though the current Supreme Court is often ideologically divided, the Court has shown remarkable consistency in recent years in rejecting overly expansive interpretations of a criminal statute by the Department of Justice.
This week’s decision in Snyder v. U.S. was just the latest example as the Supreme Court rejected the DOJ’s expansive interpretation of a federal law for at least six reasons. (See here for the post summarizing the decision).
The Snyder decision follows a clear trend over the last approximate decade of the Supreme Court overturning expansive DOJ interpretations of federal criminal statutes.
Supreme Court Once Again Rejects The DOJ’s Expansive Interpretation Of Criminal Law
Over the past approximate decade, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions regarding the scope of federal criminal statutes – including in the general bribery context – and the results are often unfavorable to the Department of Justice.
It happened again yesterday in Snyder v. U.S. (see here for the previous post summarizing the case) as the Supreme Court (6-3) rejected the DOJ’s expansive interpretation of a federal law for at least six reasons.
The majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh provides the following factual background (various internal citations omitted).
Supreme Court To Hear Bribery Case
Given how the government enforces the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (most corporate resolutions generally lack any meaningful judicial scrutiny and individual enforcement actions are generally rare), the Supreme Court has never addressed an FCPA issue in the statute’s 46 year existence. As long as these dynamics continue, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will address an FCPA issue any time soon. (As highlighted here, a cert petition was filed in the Esquenazi “foreign official” case, but getting the Supreme Court to accept an issue in the absence of a circuit split is rare).
However, in recent years the Supreme Court has issued many decisions regarding the scope of federal criminal statutes – including in the general bribery context – and the results are often unfavorable to the Department of Justice. (See here).
The Supreme Court – which generally decides which cases it will hear – recently decided to hear U.S. v. Snyder. (See here).
As stated in the cert petition, the question presented is as follows: