The Supreme Court last week, in Kelly v. United States, unanimously tossed the convictions of two former aides to Chris Christie for federal wire fraud and federally funded program fraud arising out of the “Bridgegate” scandal, in which they closed lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge as political payback against a Democratic mayor who declined to endorse Christie’s reelection as governor of New Jersey. The decision is not that interesting politically: The scandal quite deservedly ended with the firing of everyone involved, and with extensive political damage to Christie that killed his presidential campaign before it started. Nothing the Court said undermines any of that.
It is also not that surprising legally, which is why it was unanimous. The Court has consistently refused to extend the various general federal fraud statutes beyond frauds to line the pockets of the defendant in one way or another, either by diverting money or property away from the victim, or by taking bribes or kickbacks. As Justice Kagan’s opinion noted, the prosecution’s theory that the Bridgegate defendants “commandeered” the Port Authority’s employees and property (bridge lanes, toll collectors) for nakedly political purposes did not actually involve theft, bribes, kickbacks, or any other form of enrichment. This was simply an abuse of public power for political ends. The Court suggested that state-law crimes in New Jersey might still cover the same conduct.
Comments