Prosecutor argues Supreme Court rulings have shielded corrupt politicians

Former federal prosecutor Leo Wise argues that the Supreme Court has made it significantly harder to prosecute corrupt politicians by interpreting anti-corruption laws so narrowly that many forms of misconduct are effectively legalized. In an essay published Monday by The Atlantic, Wise traced this trend to a 1987 ruling that limited federal fraud statutes to the protection of money and property, excluding abstract rights to an honest government.

Wise noted that the trend accelerated after John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, citing a 2010 decision that overturned the honest-services fraud conviction of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling. He also highlighted a 2016 ruling that overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, arguing that the court’s narrow definition of official acts left many common political favors beyond the reach of prosecutors.

The former prosecutor pointed to a 2024 Supreme Court ruling granting presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts as a particularly significant barrier. While Wise acknowledged that Congress could pass legislation to limit presidential self-enrichment, he emphasized that the court’s constitutional interpretation makes it far more difficult to reverse these protections than previous statutory interpretations.

Read the full story at Common Dreams.