Return to Perspectives
Defining Matters
Aug. 13, 2024

Kramer Levin Seeks Supreme Court Review in Bribery Case Against Former New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin

On August 5, 2024, Kramer Levin filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of former New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin, who was charged with bribery for allegedly accepting campaign contributions in exchange for a grant of state funds to a nonprofit benefiting schoolchildren in Harlem.

The petition asks the Court to accept jurisdiction and clarify the law governing bribery prosecutions when the alleged bribe consists solely of campaign contributions and the official act is legitimate constituent services. A December 5, 2022, judgment of U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York, dismissed the bribery charges against Mr. Benjamin prior to trial on the grounds that the indictment failed to allege an “explicit” quid pro quo agreement as required in the campaign-contribution context. Judge Oetken agreed with Kramer Levin’s position that a more stringent standard applies in this context because, as the Supreme Court held more than thirty years ago in McCormick v. United States, constituents frequently make campaign contributions to political candidates in the hope that they will pursue certain policy objectives and candidates, if elected, often take actions supported by constituents who contributed to their campaigns. Judge Oetken’s opinion reiterated the Supreme Court’s reasoning in McCormick that there is nothing improper about this dynamic; indeed, it is protected by the First Amendment and core to our political process. However, on March 8, 2024, a panel of the Second Circuit reversed the judgment, ruling that campaign contributions are subject to the same standard as any other type of alleged bribe, and that the requisite quid pro quo agreement can be merely inferred or implied.

Kramer Levin’s petition to the Supreme Court argues that the Second Circuit’s ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent and sharpens a circuit split concerning the proper application of McCormick that must be resolved in order to provide clear guidance to political candidates and their constituents.

In the alternative, the petition requests that the Court vacate the decision below and remand for reconsideration in light of Snyder v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1947 (2024), decided in this most recent Term. The defendant in Snyder was charged under one of the same statutes as Mr. Benjamin, and the Court distinguished bribes, which “are promised or given before the official act” and are covered by the statute, from gratuities, which “are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation” and are not covered by the statute. According to the government’s theory of the case, Mr. Benjamin allegedly procured the grant before he was promised or received any of the at-issue campaign contributions, which the district court held warranted dismissal.

The petition is available here.

Related People

Related Practices

We use cookies on this website to optimize user experience and site functionality and to give you the best possible experience. We do so with your approval. The choice is up to you. Learn more.