The Supreme Court could make it tougher for the government to crack down on public corruption, signaling Wednesday that it may overturn former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's federal bribery conviction.
Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed concerns during arguments in the case that current laws give prosecutors too much power to criminalize the everyday things politicians do to help constituents.
The case has broad implications for prosecutors who have relied on federal bribery laws to convict prominent political figures such as former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. And it could impact the current case against New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, charged with accepting campaign contributions and luxury trips from a wealthy donor in exchange for performing political favors.
McDonnell, who was in the courtroom with his wife Maureen to watch the arguments, was convicted in 2014 of accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement.
At issue is a federal law that bars public officials from accepting money or gifts in exchange for ``official acts.'' The court is trying to clarify what distinguishes bribery from the routine actions _ setting up meetings, attending conferences _ that politicians often do for those they represent.
But the justices struggled over how to draw that line. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer suggested the bribery law could be considered unconstitutionally vague.
Breyer said the law presents ``a real separation of powers problem'' and ``puts at risk behavior that is common.''
``That is a recipe for giving the Department of Justice and the prosecutors enormous power over elected officials,'' Breyer said.
Roberts said it was ``extraordinary'' that dozens of former White House attorneys and state attorneys general, from both sides of the political aisle, submitted legal papers saying that upholding McDonnell's conviction would cripple the ability of elected officials to do their jobs.
``I think it's extraordinary that those people agree on anything,'' Roberts said.
McDonnell insists his role in setting up meetings and hosting events for Star Scientific Inc. CEO Jonnie Williams was part of the customary services doled out by every politician. There is no dispute that McDonnell and his wife hosted a product launch for Williams at the governor's mansion, attended other events promoting Star Scientific's products and asked other state officials to meet with Williams.
Arguing for McDonnell, attorney Noel Francisco said the former governor never put any pressure on those officials and that Williams never got the official government action he wanted _ state funding for Virginia's public universities to conduct clinical studies on the dietary pills.
Francisco said setting up meetings, going to conferences and encouraging public officials to consider Williams' proposal never crossed the line ``in trying to influence the outcome of any particular decision.''
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about evidence that university officials said they felt pressure from the governor to help Williams. Francisco said the jury instructions were flawed. He said jurors should have been told they had to find whether McDonnell actually tried to influence an official government decision.
Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben said the line McDonnell wants to draw ``is a recipe for corruption'' and would open the door to letting people pay for greater access to public officials.
Dreeben told the justices it was enough that McDonnell accepted personal benefits from Williams on the understanding that he would take official action to assist Williams in return. He said it would be ``stunning'' for the court to find that bribery laws in place for decades are too vague.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy asked: ``Would it be absolutely stunning to say that the government has given us no workable standard?''
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously upheld the former governor's convictions last year.
The Supreme Court has several options if it decides to overturn the conviction, according to Jeffrey Bellin, a professor at William & Mary Law School. It could find the jury instructions were too broad and give prosecutors a chance to retry the case. The justices could also rule that evidence offered by prosecutors did not show unlawful conduct under federal corruption laws, giving prosecutors no chance of a retrial. Or the court could strike down the law itself as unconstitutionally vague.
Williams loaned the couple tens of thousands of dollars to help them pay off debts, bought a Rolex watch for Bob McDonnell and purchased nearly $20,000 in designer clothes for McDonnell' wife, Maureen. He also gave them $15,000 to cater their daughter's wedding and paid for trips and golf outings for the couple and their children. Prosecutors said McDonnell usually responded within days of each gift to help garner support for Williams' supplement.
``Never during any time in my 38 years of public service have I ever done anything that would abuse the powers of my office,'' McDonnell told reporters in brief remarks outside the court following the arguments.
"This was a charge that was just a bridge too far. We think our arguments came out well before the court today and we look forward to their decision," Francisco said.
McDonnell is facing a two-year prison sentence, while his wife, who also was convicted in the case, has been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. McDonnell remains free while his appeal is being considered; his wife's appeal is on hold until the high court decides her husband's case.
A ruling is expected by late June.