US Supreme Court decision could affect conviction of San Francisco official

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that it is not against federal law for public officials to accept gratuities for their past official acts may call into question a conviction won by the San Francisco U.S. attorney's office in its fight against corruption by city officials.

Philip J. Kearney Jr., an ex-federal prosecutor with Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney who represents former San Francisco senior building inspector Bernard Curran, who pleaded guilty in December 2022 to accepting a $260,000 interest-free loan, $30,000 of which he never paid back, and charitable donations from property owners and developers following his decisions, said he was considering options.

"We are assessing the matter for potential further action at this stage," he wrote in a statement. Curran, who was sentenced to a year and a day in prison in July 2023 for accepting illegal gratuities under the law in question, has been released from federal prison and is staying in a halfway house.

Curran's case was cited by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent as an example of cases involving gratuities that she did not find so innocuous, even though part of the crime involved donations to the Golden Gate Rugby Association, a youth sports league where he volunteered.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote for the 6-3 majority that the federal law is only a bribery statute and does not affect gratuities received later.

"We should hesitate before concluding that Congress prohibited gratuities that state and local governments have allowed for their officials," he wrote. "After all, Congress does not lightly override state and local governments on such core matters of state and local governance."

The case involves James Snyder, the former mayor of a city in Indiana who accepted a $13,000 gratuity - after asking for $15,000 - from a truck company that received $1.1 million from the city for the purchase of five trash trucks. Kavanaugh pointed out that Indiana does not impose general criminal or civil prohibitions on local officials who accept gratuities. He expressed concern that a county official who accepted a $100 gift card from a neighbor could be subjected to years in federal prison. Snyder v. United States, 2024 DJDAR 5767 (S. Ct., filed Aug. 1, 2023).

But Jackson, writing for the minority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, mocked Kavanaugh's hypothetical concerns, noting that the Indiana city mayor found guilty in the case took $13,000, not a small gift. She also cited Curran's case and accused Kavanaugh of misreading the statute. "Ignoring the plain text of §666 -- which, again, expressly targets officials who 'corruptly' solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments 'intending to be influenced or rewarded' -- the court concludes that the statute does not criminalize gratuities at all," Jackson wrote.

Jackson wrote that the law, as written by Congress, drew no distinction between bribes - made before an official action - and gratuities paid afterward. Reading the law to prohibit gratuities "does honor Congress's intent to punish rewards corruptly accepted by government officials in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe," she added.

Randall G. Knox is a San Francisco defense attorney and former prosecutor who represented a co-defendant in Curran's case, who remains in prison on more serious charges. While the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco has charged a number of city officials and other individuals with crimes related to corruption, he did not believe Wednesday's ruling would affect many - if any - of those cases because most do not rely solely on gratuities. But he faulted Kavanaugh's opinion for creating "a road map" to bribe public officials while staying within the Supreme Court's definition of the law. "Just get the money later on," he said.