The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a former Indiana mayor convicted of accepting a bribe from a business shortly after it was awarded municipal contracts, a ruling that one dissenting justice called 'absurd' and critics said weakens public corruption laws. Ruling 6-3 along ideological lines in Snyder v.
'He asks us to decide whether the language of §666 criminalizes both bribes and gratuities, or just bribes. And he says the answer matters because bribes require an upfront agreement to take official actions for payment, and he never agreed beforehand to be paid the $13,000 from the dealership.' 'Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's court could love,' she asserted.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more: