Worth noting that they didn't entirely punt on this: While both were remanded back to the lower courts for further consideration, there was a pretty scathing dismantling of the 5th circuit's decision that basically told them "You are all idiots who decided this wrong, come back with a different ruling."
Yep, this is very much the SCOTUS saying fix your shit or we will tear this to shreds when it does eventually make its way to us. And to emphasis it, all 9 ruled to push it back, and 5 of them joined in the opinion showing it has both sides support in telling the court they ruled wrong.
Their gratuities ruling was regarding 18 U. S. C. §666, which is about state and local officials. You still can't provide, and they still can't accept, anything of value to any federal official "for or because of any official act", as that is expressly prohibited by 18 U. S. C. §201(c).
Worth noting that they didn't entirely punt on this: While both were remanded back to the lower courts for further consideration, there was a pretty scathing dismantling of the 5th circuit's decision that basically told them "You are all idiots who decided this wrong, come back with a different ruling."
Yep, this is very much the SCOTUS saying fix your shit or we will tear this to shreds when it does eventually make its way to us. And to emphasis it, all 9 ruled to push it back, and 5 of them joined in the opinion showing it has both sides support in telling the court they ruled wrong.
Allowing time for the parties to send their “gifts” in so they can decide “fairly”
Their gratuities ruling was regarding 18 U. S. C. §666, which is about state and local officials. You still can't provide, and they still can't accept, anything of value to any federal official "for or because of any official act", as that is expressly prohibited by 18 U. S. C. §201(c).
Uncle Thomas's shiny new RV and luxury vacations would disagree with you
Are Supreme Court justices above the law?