Constitutional
Law Class Notes
More on Sabri
We
talked at length about the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666
yesterday. Now, let’s focus on the constitutional
argument that Sabri is making as to why the statute is unconstitutional. What part of the Constitution does Sabri cite
in support of his point?
Sabri
claims that the statute is facially unconstitutional. How come?
Is it a matter of relatedness
between the bribe and federal spending? Is
there an inadequate “jurisdictional hook” in the statute?
What
was the “jurisdictional hook” issue in Lopez?
It’s not the “substantial
effect” test. The question is whether
the statute addresses, for example, “interstate commerce” and only allows
prosecution if the conduct is related to that power of Congress.
§
666 does not have a jurisdictional hook of
that type. There is a requirement that the bribe be
received by a government or organization that receives a minimum of $10,000 in federal
funds. Why isn’t the $10,000 part of the
statute a jurisdictional hook? It’s not
a Commerce Clause hook, but that’s not the constitutional peg on which we’re
trying to hang this statute. Could it be
that we have a jurisdictional hook but that the hook is insufficient?
We
could say that Congress attempted a jurisdictional
hook here. Congress didn’t say that we’re
going to punish all acts of bribery
against state and local officials. They
limited the statute to agencies that receive a minimum amount of federal
funds. But there may be an insufficient
connection between the bribe and the federal interest that’s being protected.
The
existence of a jurisdictional hook is a type
of connection or nexus. This case
insists that an element of the crime is the fact that an agency received
$10,000 in federal funds. That creates a
connection between the conduct to be criminalized and the Spending Clause. But this connection might not be good enough.
A jurisdictional
hook is an element of the statute that is explicitly tied to the source of federal
authority. The presence or absence of a jurisdictional
hook is important to the courts’ reasoning, but it’s only one factor to be
analyzed.
What
is the Court going to do? Foley thinks
the federal government has four safe votes.
But if cert was granted, it means there are at least four justices
interested in reviewing the case.
“Facial” challenges
Why
does Sabri insist he’s bringing a “facial” challenge? Sabri wants to challenge the statute “on its
face”, that is, as written. He claims that the statute, as written, is
improper.
This
concept is in contrast to an “as-applied” challenge. In such a challenge, you claim that the statute
isn’t faulty on its face, but it is defective as applied to a certain situation
(i.e. my situation).
Sabri
doesn’t go with an as-applied challenge because it would be a sure loser for him. How come?
Well, the facts don’t look good for Sabri.
Also,
note that this case is coming up on a motion to dismiss an indictment rather
than to overturn a conviction. The district
court granted the motion to dismiss the indictment, which is why Sabri never
got to trial. The whole question of “facial”
versus “as-applied” challenges has nothing to do with Sabri’s guilt or
innocence as it would be proved to a jury.
The bribe is merely “alleged”, but for the purposes of this challenge we
could accept the facts as given.
But
why would an “as-applied” challenge fail?
The
Court will ask similar questions in the cases of both “facial” and “as-applied”
challenges. For example: Is this statute
always constitutional, in each and
every instance that it could apply? That’s
one extreme. On the other hand, is there
a single instance in which the government
could constitutionally bring charges?
There’s the other extreme, and the two extremes define a range in the
middle.
Sabri
was said to benefit from the federal funds in connection to the bribe that he
was giving. Sabri was trying to get a
community development grant, and the grants came from the federal government! Sabri was trying to get $800,000 in federal
funds! He was going to kick back $80,000
to a councilmember in order to get help getting that cash!
Sabri
wants his development project to receive a portion of the federal funds, and
his bribe is an effort to try to obtain those funds. The statute doesn’t require that kind of
connection, but given that connection it seems like the prosecution is okay in
this case. Sabri can’t get the indictment
dismissed in its entirety if he brings an as-applied challenge. Sabri’s fact pattern has the kind of nexus
that he argues the statute must have in order to be constitutional. That’s
why an as-applied challenge would fail.
Sabri
doesn’t claim that his conduct can’t constitutionally be punished by Congress. Sabri instead claims that the statute Congress
wrote to get after him was a badly written statute.
It
seems clear that it is legitimate for Congress to try to stop people from
bribing state and local officials to try to get at federal funds.
So
it turns out that at least some
applications of this statute are valid and permissible. This statute is not 100% unconstitutional.
It is not necessarily 100% constitutional, but it could also be somewhere
in between.
There
is a doctrine that says if the statute would be valid as applied to you, then you don’t have standing to sue
to protect third party rights. Sabri
tries to get around this by saying that even though he could be punished under a better written statute, there are some
people who can’t get punished at all because of the way the statute is written.
Sabri
is asking the court to say that just because the statute is written
defectively, that makes the statute
itself invalid in all its applications, because every time the government punishes under that statute, it punishes
in a situation where it doesn’t have to ask about the “nexus”. Sabri thus argues that every prosecution under this statute is tainted and invalid.