How Scalia's legacy echoes in Supreme Court's final decision of the term
For decades, Justice Antonin Scalia was an outsize presence on the United States Supreme Court. Since he died in February, the short-handed court has wended its way through a number of controversial cases 鈥� punctuated by occasional, wrenching deadlock.
On Monday, the high court finally reached the finish line, and in its final decision of the term Justice Scalia鈥檚 legacy was again palpable.
In the ruling, which unanimously vacated the 2014 federal corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, both Scalia鈥檚 vision for the court and his concerns for it were put on display. Scalia was critical of the vagueness of the bribery statute at issue and, in fact, wrote the opinion cited as precedence in the case. But experts say the decision itself also highlights the lack of political experience on the court as well as the homogeneity of the justices鈥� r茅sum茅s 鈥� which he wrote about with some consternation last June.
The case itself concerned whether prosecutors were justified in charging Mr. McDonnell under federal bribery statutes after he received more than $177,000 in luxury items, vacations, loans, and other largess from businessman Jonnie Williams, or whether the application of the bribery statutes in this case could result in a 鈥渃riminalization of politics,鈥� wherein prosecutors use vague or overbroad corruption laws to pursue charges for run-of-the-mill political activity.
McDonnell argued that, while he did receive those gifts, he never did anything in return that qualified as an 鈥渙fficial act,鈥� only arranging meetings for Mr. Williams with other state officials.
The court sided with McDonnell 鈥� unanimously, albeit with reservations.
While 惭肠顿辞苍苍别濒濒鈥檚 behavior was far from 鈥渘ormal political interaction鈥� with a constituent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that 鈥渨ould raise significant constitutional concerns,鈥� and 鈥渃ould cast a pall of potential prosecution鈥� over normal politician-constituent relationships.
鈥淥fficials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance,鈥� he added, 鈥渁nd citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse.鈥�
In no way did the justices condone 惭肠顿辞苍苍别濒濒鈥檚 behavior 鈥� while they vacated his convictions, they did not dismiss the charges, meaning he could be convicted again under a narrowed prosecution.
鈥淭here is no doubt that this case is distasteful,鈥� writes Chief Justice Roberts. 鈥淏ut our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government鈥檚 boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.鈥�
It is this approach that carries echoes of Scalia, experts say.
鈥淭here鈥檚 no question he would have been in 惭肠顿辞苍苍别濒濒鈥檚 camp,鈥� says Randall Eliason, a professor at George Washington University School of Law in Washington. 鈥淗e was pretty critical of these white collar statutes in general.鈥�
Scalia wrote the majority opinion in perhaps the court鈥檚 leading discussion on the federal anti-bribery statute at issue in 惭肠顿辞苍苍别濒濒鈥檚 case, notes Professor Eliason, an expert on public corruption.
In 鈥� that a California agricultural cooperative didn鈥檛 violate federal law when providing gifts to a former Secretary of Agriculture 鈥� he warned聽of criminalizing a championship sports team giving the president a replica jersey, or an Education secretary being indicted for accepting a school baseball cap on a visit to a high school.
In , he argued that the statute was too vague to be constitutional.
Richard Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, wrote in that the McDonnell decision 鈥渟hows the continuing important influence of Justice Scalia in this area of the law.鈥�
鈥淰ague and broad laws criminalizing ordinary politics raise due process problems, selective prosecutions, and unfair treatment,鈥� wrote Professor Hasen. 鈥淛ustice Scalia signaled this and here a unanimous court followed his lead.鈥�
But the decision also gave new voice to a concern Scalia expressed last year, when from the court鈥檚 ruling establishing a constitutional right to same sex marriage, he questioned the experiential diversity of the court, describing it as 鈥渁 select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine.鈥�
All but one of the justices are former federal appeals court judges (Elena Kagan served as dean of Harvard Law School and US solicitor general), and none has ever run for public office. President Barack Obama鈥檚 nominee to replace Scalia 鈥� Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge from Harvard Law School 鈥� also would fit this mold.
The last justice to have any legislative experience was Sandra Day O鈥機onnor, who retired in 2006. Some experts believe this may have some effect on the court鈥檚 decisions, at least in cases that involve the political system.
The most prominent example is the , in which the court transformed the US political landscape by ruling that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting election spending from corporations and labor unions.
The decision 鈥渞eads like it was written by law professors, not anyone with political experience,鈥� Timothy O鈥橬eill, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago,聽told the Monitor in February. 鈥淵ou wonder, if anyone had any experience in politics, if a case like Citizens United would have decided the way it was.鈥�
惭肠顿辞苍苍别濒濒鈥檚 聽referenced Citizens United, and, while it wasn't mentioned in the court's decision, some experts believe the justices viewed his case through the same legalistic (and perhaps naive) lens.
鈥淏oth opinions seem to discount the influence of money in the political process,鈥� says Eliason. 鈥淭he court draws a very narrow view of what qualifies as corruption, and maybe doesn鈥檛 have a very realistic real-world view of what goes on 鈥� that money does provide access and does corrupt the process.鈥�
