Lifting the Fog Over Lobbying Compliance - updated with impact of COVID-19 on NYS lobbying community
[WEBINAR] "Walking the Line" - Public Agencies', Officials' and Employees' Roles in Local Elections
[WEBINAR] Who Does What? Defining Proper Roles for Staff and Elected Officials
Bribery & Corruption in the Military. A Front-Line View (Part II)
Ethics Laws and the Importance of Transparency for Public Officials
Blogging for Lawyers
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States released its opinion in Snyder v. United States, holding that 18 U.S.C. §666, relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, forbids bribes...more
In a pair of rulings issued near the end of the last Term, Fischer v. United States and Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court continued to cut back on the Justice Department’s interpretation and enforcement of criminal...more
On Wednesday, June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal anti-bribery statute does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts taken in the past....more
On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a public corruption case that could have a lasting impact on how the U.S. Government prosecutes corruption and procurement fraud cases involving state and local...more
Readers of prior Firm client alerts in the white-collar criminal space will no doubt recall the Supreme Court's recent trend of scaling back the powers of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in prosecuting public corruption...more
In Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is not a federal crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities under 18 U.S.C. § 666. In so doing, the Court overturned the decision...more
On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the main federal anti-corruption statute proscribing bribes to state and local officials does not criminalize gratuities, which the Court described as “payments made to an...more
The US Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling in Snyder v. United States clarified that the primary federal law regulating state and local corruption, 18 USC § 666, does not bar state and local officials from accepting...more
Last month, in Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly construed the federal anti-bribery statute. In that case, the mayor of Portage, Indiana worked with other officials to carefully prepare...more
In the latest example of the Roberts court reining in the government’s use of broadly worded criminal statutes, on June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Snyder that the federal bribery statute does not...more
The Supreme Court started yesterday with 14 decisions yet to deliver and only reduced the number by two—neither of them the Trump immunity case nor the Loper case concerning the future of the agency deference doctrine of...more
On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Snyder v. United States, No. 23-108, holding that federal statute 18 U. S. C. § 666, which makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept,...more
Lindke v. Freed, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1214 (2024) (A public official who blocks someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both 1) possessed...more
Who would have thought politicians can work for tips? Well, that is what Portage, Indiana Mayor Jim Snyder argued (more or less) before the Supreme Court last month, when he sought to overturn his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §...more
On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-awaited decision on two cases that now create guardrails on when government officials can and cannot block private citizens from social media accounts....more
There are about 20 million state and local government employees across the United States. Many of them use social media for personal reasons or for official communications. ...more
On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decisions in Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, two similar cases which broadly asked when public officials may be liable for their use of...more
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in Lindke v. Freed and Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff, two cases which involved when public officials can block social media followers and delete their...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions today: Lindke v. Freed, No. 22-611: This case addresses whether a public official violates the First Amendment by blocking individuals from commenting on the...more
In Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States could redefine the legal boundaries regarding federal bribery as it prepares to answer whether the primary federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666,...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in two cases: Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Nos. 22-611, 22-324: Both cases involve whether and to what extent public officials’ activity...more
On March 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision of interest to public entities and individuals serving in public office. In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, the Court declined to consider a...more
Two weeks ago was a win for boards of education and other public bodies in Connecticut and across the country. On March 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Houston Community College System v....more
The June 14, 2018 post “The President May Not Block Twitter Followers Because They Disagree With Him Politically” reported how the District Court in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia University v. Trump, 302 F.Supp.3d...more
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as “RICO,” was enacted to fight organized crime but has evolved into the bane of legitimate businesses. Along with criminal penalties that can only be...more