Last week, the Supreme Court decided Snyder v. United States. Contrary to some editorial headlines, it did not "legalize bribery." It said that while bribing state and local officials is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 666, giving them gratuities--gifts that are not part of any quid-pro-quo arrangement--are not covered by that statute. But some critics raised the point that Justice Thomas, who has been criticized for accepting gifts from rich people with interests in some of the cases before him, was part of the majority on the case.
Which got me thinking.
Paying gratuities to federal officials is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 201(c), which makes it illegal for a "public official" to "receive" or "accept" "anything of value . . . for or because of any official act performed . . . by such official."
So Justice Thomas accepted luxury vacations and other gifts from billionaires. I'm not aware of any evidence that the gifts were actually provided "because of" his votes or opinions in any specific cases, or that he was aware of any such motivation. But if they were and he was, query whether his actions would implicate § 201(c). Or whether, for a judge, the "official act" has to be a specific vote or opinion, rather than a pattern of them, which the payer wants to reward.
Also, Canon 3(b)(2)(C) of the Supreme Court's Code of Conduct provides that a justice should disqualify himself from a case when his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," as when he has "an interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding." Would it be reasonable to question whether the above conduct falls close enough to § 201(c) that Justice Thomas has an interest in the outcome of any case under that statute, or other laws relating to unlawful gratuities, such as 18 U.S.C. § 666?
This court is beyond the pale. God help our country and God help us all!