The Supreme Court on Monday seemed likely to impose new restrictions on federal prosecutors battling public corruption, with the justices skeptical about the convictions of two men who profited in influence peddling during the administration of former New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D).
The justices questioned whether Joseph Percoco could be convicted of depriving the public of his “honest services,” given that he was working for Cuomo’s reelection campaign — rather than in his former role as an aide to the governor — when he accepted $35,000 in payments from a construction company. Percoco made calls to state officials on the company’s behalf just before returning to government employment.
But using one’s political influence as a private citizen is basically just being a lobbyist, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said, and “this town is full of such persons.”
Advertisement
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Nicole F. Reaves, a Justice Department lawyer defending Percoco’s conviction, that the government’s arguments for prosecuting a person who does not hold public office “sounds like … an effort to break down the concept of political power.”
Justice Clarence Thomas added it was “rather odd” that the federal government, rather than New York state, was going after Percoco. “If New York actually wanted to prosecute this activity, it had the authority to do so and the statutory basis for it,” he said.
The Supreme Court has become increasingly wary of federal prosecutors pursuing...
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, apologized Monday for incorrectly interpreting a term used for starving prisoners in Nazi concentration...