Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The case involves former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services". The Court found the statute vague, meaning it was written in a manner that almost anyone could be convicted of the statute by engaging in most legal activities. However, the Court refused to void the statute as unconstitutionally vague. The Court decided to limit the application of the statute only to defendants who hold a fiduciary duty and they participate in bribery and kickback schemes. The Court supported its decision not to rule the statute void for vagueness on its obligation to construe and not condemn Congress' laws. Ultimately, Skilling's sentence was reduced by 10 years as a result.
| Skilling v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 1, 2010 Decided June 24, 2010 | |
| Full case name | Jeffrey K. Skilling v. United States |
| Docket no. | 08-1394 |
| Citations | 561 U.S. 358 (more) 130 S. Ct. 2896; 177 L. Ed. 2d 619 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Convictions affirmed, 554 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 558 U.S. ___ (2009). |
| Subsequent | Prison term of Jeffrey Skilling reduced from 24 years and 4 months to 14 years (minus time served) |
| Holding | |
| Pretrial publicity and community prejudice did not prevent Skilling from obtaining a fair trial. However, the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346, is properly confined to cover only bribery and kickback schemes, which do not include Skilling's alleged misconduct. So construed, §1346 is not unconstitutionally vague. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito (Part I); Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (Part II); Roberts, Stevens, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor (Part III) |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in part), joined by Thomas; Kennedy (except Part III) |
| Concurrence | Alito (in part) |
| Concur/dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Stevens, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V; 18 U.S.C. § 1346 | |
Companion cases
editIn light of the court's findings, a similar case, Weyhrauch v. United States, involving former Alaska representative Bruce Weyhrauch,[1] was returned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where federal charges were eventually dropped.[2][3]
The Supreme Court heard the Skilling case along with the similar Black v. United States (2010). The later case of Ciminelli v. United States (2023) further narrowed the application of the statute, quoting Skilling.
Notes
edit- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 24, 2010). "Justices Limit Use of 'Honest Services' Law Against Fraud". The New York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
- ^ Miller, Matt (February 17, 2016). "Former Juneau lawmaker fined $18K for allegedly helping oil companies while seeking oil jobs". KTOO. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
- ^ Murphy, Kim (October 22, 2011). "Corruption case against former Alaska legislator crumbled". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
References
edit- Amanda Becker, Lawyers prepare to reopen 'honest services' cases in wake of Supreme Court ruling, Washington Post, August 9, 2010
- Artur Davis, Court could redefine insider trading. MarketWatch, March 11, 2011
- Nicholas J. Wagoner, Honest-Services Fraud: The Supreme Court Defuses the Government's Weapon of Mass Discretion in Skilling v. United States, South Texas Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Winter 2010), p. 1121
- Thomas P. Cimino, Jr., Junaid A. Zubairi, Rachel C. Adamczyk, Rachel T. Copenhaver, Vedder Price, Supreme Court Limits Scope of “Honest Services” Statute – Skilling v. United States. National Law Review, September 8, 2010
- Justice Department Seeks a Broader Fraud Law to Cover Self-Dealing, New York Times, September 28, 2010
- Wesley Burrell, The Right-to-Honest-Services Doctrine—Enron’s Final Victim: Pure Void-for-Vagueness in Skilling v. United States, 44 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1289 (2011). Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol44/iss3/19
External links
edit- Text of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)