How the Supreme Court Dismantled Corruption Prosecutions

Former federal prosecutor Leo Wise argues in a recent Atlantic essay that the high court has systematically narrowed the interpretation of anti-corruption statutes since the 1980s. This judicial shift began in 1987 when the court overturned a mail fraud conviction, rejecting the premise that officials could be held liable for violating the public's right to honest services. While Congress initially attempted to correct this via bipartisan legislation, legislative remedies became increasingly scarce as the court continued to redefine the boundaries of criminal behavior.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court accelerated this trend. Wise highlights the 2010 Skilling decision and the 2016 ruling in favor of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, where the court narrowed the definition of 'official acts' to exclude actions like setting up meetings or hosting events in exchange for gifts. The 2024 ruling granting presidents absolute immunity for official acts represents the current peak of this trajectory. Unlike previous statutory interpretations that Congress could override, the court framed this immunity as a constitutional requirement, creating a significant barrier to future reform. Wise suggests that while the path is steep, Congress could still mitigate the damage by strictly regulating presidential gift-taking and barring companies with financial ties to a president from securing federal contracts.