McDonnell v. United States

Editor's Note :

McDonnell v. United States

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood

A "view" from the courtroom: What the Constitution means to me – Mark Walsh

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 26, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 27, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-474	4th Cir.	Apr 27, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Jun 27, 2016	8-0	Roberts	OT 2015

Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, makes it a crime for a public official to “receive or accept anything of value” in exchange for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter 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 to 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." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 27, 2016.

Prosecutors move to dismiss charges against McDonnells (Amy Howe)
Symposium: Is it bribery or “the basic compact underlying representative government”? (Tara Malloy)
Symposium: McDonnell decision substantially weakens the government’s ability to prevent corruption and protect citizens (Fred Wertheimer)
Symposium: Federal criminal statutes are not blank checks for prosecutors (Jeffrey Green and Ivan Dominguez)
Symposium: Federal prosecutors and the power to pick defendants (Pete Patterson and John Ohlendorf)
Symposium: Upending the long-settled law of politics (Hampton Dellinger)
A “view” from the Courtroom: A final bite at the apple (Mark Walsh)
Symposium: An important victory for representative democracy (David Debold)
Opinion analysis: New barrier to public corruption cases (Lyle Denniston)
A “view” from the Courtroom: Official actions and reactions (Mark Walsh)
Argument analysis: Anti-corruption law in trouble? (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Political favors as crimes (Lyle Denniston)
No action on immigration; McDonnell gets hearing (Lyle Denniston)
Ex-Governor McDonnell challenges conviction (Lyle Denniston)
Former governor to remain free during appeal (Lyle Denniston)
Former governor spared prison, for now (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
Ex-Gov. McDonnell in new plea to remain out of prison (Lyle Denniston)
Virginia ex-governor's corruption case on way to Court (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Aug 20 2015	Application (15A218) for a stay of the mandate, or in the alternative for release on bail pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Aug 24 2015	Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicant, it is ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, August 26, 2015, by 4 p.m. It is further ordered that the issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in case No. 15-4019 is hereby stayed pending consideration of the response and further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court.
Aug 26 2015	Response to application from respondent United States filed.
Aug 27 2015	Reply of applicant Robert F. McDonnell filed.
Aug 31 2015	Application (15A218) referred to the Court.
Aug 31 2015	Application (15A218) granted by the Court. The application for stay of the mandate presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted, and the issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in case No. 15-4019 is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the judgment of this Court.
Oct 13 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2015)
Oct 16 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the responhdent.
Oct 16 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Nov 12 2015	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 8, 2015.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Republican Governors Public Policy Committee filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former Federal Officials filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Public Policy Advocates and Business Leaders filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former Attorneys General filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of 60 Former State Attorneys General (non - Virginian) filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Virginia Law Professors filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Members of the Virginia General Assembly filed.
Nov 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Benjamin Todd Jealous, et al. filed.
Dec 8 2015	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Dec 21 2015	Reply of petitioner Robert F. McDonnell filed.
Dec 22 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 15 2016	Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Feb 10 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Feb 12 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondent.
Feb 24 2016	Motion to deem the Court of Appeals joint appendix and supplemental appendix as the joint appendix in this Court filed by petitioner Robert F. McDonnell.
Feb 24 2016	Supplemental joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Feb 29 2016	Brief of petitioner Robert F. McDonnell filed.
Mar 4 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Mar 7 2016	Motion to deem the Court of Appeals joint appendix and supplemental appendix as the joint appendix in this Court GRANTED.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Former Virginia Attorneys General filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Former Federal Officials filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of U.S. Justice Foundation, et al. filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Public Policy Advocates and Business Leaders filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Republican Governors Public Policy Committee filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of 77 Former State Attorneys General (non - Virginian) filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amicus curiae of James Madison Center for Free Speech filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Benjamin Todd Jealous, Dolores McQuinn, and Algie T. Howell filed.
Mar 7 2016	Joint appendix consisting of 12 volumes of appendices filed in the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Members of the Virginia General Assembly filed.
Mar 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Virginia Law Professors filed.
Mar 14 2016	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.
Mar 15 2016	CIRCULATED.
Mar 17 2016	Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. SEALED record is electronic.
Mar 23 2016	Record received from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia is electronic and located on PACER. SEALED record is electronic.
Mar 30 2016	Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Apr 6 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed. (Distributed)
Apr 6 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law filed. (Distributed)
Apr 6 2016	Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Apr 6 2016	Brief amici curiae of Public Citizen, Inc., and Democracy 21 filed. (Distributed)
Apr 6 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Campaign Legal Center filed. (Distributed)
Apr 13 2016	Reply of petitioner Robert F. McDonnell filed. (Distributed)
Apr 27 2016	Argued. For petitioner: Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Jun 27 2016	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Jul 29 2016	JUDGMENT ISSUED
Aug 19 2016	Record from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia has been returned.

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case – Amy Howe

Relist Watch – John Elwood

A "view" from the courtroom: What the Constitution means to me – Mark Walsh
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in three argued cases: United States v. Haymond, Kisor v. Wilkie, and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will release its final opinions for the term.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Kisor v. Wilkie Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
- Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas Tennessee’s 2-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the commerce clause and is not saved by the 21st Amendment.
- United States v. Haymond The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s judgment – that 18 U. S. C. §3583(k)’s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable – is vacated, and the case is remanded.
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 66

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 26, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	66
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions

27
Opinions
Conference