SABRI V. UNITED STATES 541 U.S. 600 (2004) CASE BRIEF

SABRI V. UNITED STATES

541 U.S. 600 (2004)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Sabri (D) appealed the reversal of the District Courts holding that 18 U. S. C. 666(a)(2) was facially invalid. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

FACTS: Sabri (D) wanted to build a hotel and retail structure in the city of Minneapolis. D offered three separate bribes to a city councilman, Brian Herron. D offered a $5,000 kickback for obtaining various regulatory approvals, a $10,000 bribe to set up and attend a meeting with owners of land near the site D had in mind, at which Herron would threaten to use the city's eminent domain authority to seize their property if they were troublesome to D and offered Herron a commission of 10% on some $800,000 in community economic development grants that D sought from the city, the MCDA, and other sources. Charges were brought under 18 U. S. C. 666(a)(2), which imposes federal criminal penalties on anyone who 'corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more.' The statute requires that 'the organization, government, or agency receiv[e], in any one-year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.' 666(b). D moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that 666(a)(2) is unconstitutional on its face for failure to require proof of a connection between the federal funds and the alleged bribe, as an element of liability. The District Court held that the law was facially invalid. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that there was nothing fatal in the absence of an express requirement to prove some connection between a given bribe and federally pedigreed dollars, and that the statute was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause in serving the objects of the congressional spending power. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner