This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/us/supreme-court-bridgegate.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of ‘Bridgegate’ Prosecution Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of ‘Bridgegate’ Prosecution
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Closing access lanes to the George Washington Bridge to punish a political opponent in 2013 was a scandal, one that helped doom the presidential ambitions of Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor at the time. On Tuesday, a skeptical Supreme Court considered whether the incident — “Bridgegate,” in the tabloid shorthand — was also a crime.WASHINGTON — Closing access lanes to the George Washington Bridge to punish a political opponent in 2013 was a scandal, one that helped doom the presidential ambitions of Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor at the time. On Tuesday, a skeptical Supreme Court considered whether the incident — “Bridgegate,” in the tabloid shorthand — was also a crime.
The case concerned two of Mr. Christie’s associates, Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, who were convicted of wire fraud and related federal charges for their roles in concocting a “traffic study” that caused extreme delays for motorists seeking to cross the bridge, the busiest in the world, from Fort Lee, N.J., to Manhattan. The mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, had rebuffed a request to endorse Mr. Christie, and this was his punishment.The case concerned two of Mr. Christie’s associates, Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, who were convicted of wire fraud and related federal charges for their roles in concocting a “traffic study” that caused extreme delays for motorists seeking to cross the bridge, the busiest in the world, from Fort Lee, N.J., to Manhattan. The mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, had rebuffed a request to endorse Mr. Christie, and this was his punishment.
“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” Ms. Kelly, an aide to Mr. Christie, wrote in an email to officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge. Mr. Christie has denied any knowledge of the scheme. “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” Ms. Kelly, an aide to Mr. Christie, wrote in an email to officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge. Mr. Christie, who was at the court for Tuesday’s argument, has denied any knowledge of the scheme.
Eric J. Feigin, a lawyer for the federal government, told the justices on Tuesday that the delays were “catastrophic,” endangering motorists. That point was undisputed.Eric J. Feigin, a lawyer for the federal government, told the justices on Tuesday that the delays were “catastrophic,” endangering motorists. That point was undisputed.
“It was quite a problem, I grant you,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said.“It was quite a problem, I grant you,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said.
A central legal question for the justices was whether it can be a crime for government officials to give false reasons for their actions. Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared wary of allowing prosecutions for lies from government officials about the reasons for their actions. Also undisputed was that the traffic scheme was at least unseemly. In a Supreme Court brief, Ms. Kelly’s lawyers called it petty and ill-advised. But they said it was not criminal.
Justice Breyer said it should not be a crime for a mayor to have his street plowed first after a snowstorm. “I’m not trying to suggest that this is O.K.,” said Jacob M. Roth, a lawyer for Ms. Kelly. “We don’t want public officials acting for personal reasons. We don’t want them acting necessarily for partisan or political reasons. But what I’m saying is the remedy for that is not the federal property fraud statutes.”
The justices also struggled to decide whether the Port Authority had been defrauded of anything. “The object of the deception was not to obtain property,” Justice Elena Kagan said, paraphrasing the words of the key federal law under which the officials were prosecuted. A central legal question for the court was whether it can be a crime for government officials to give false reasons for their actions. Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared wary of allowing such prosecutions. Lying about the reasons for official conduct is commonplace, several justices suggested, and making it criminal could expose countless government officials to prosecution.
Other justices delved into whether Mr. Baroni, who was an official of the agency at the time, had been authorized to reallocate the lanes. If he had the authority, the government seemed to concede, he was free to use it even if he had a political motive. “I don’t see how this case works,” Justice Breyer said. It should not be a serious crime, he said by way of example, for mayors to have their streets plowed first after snowstorms and to lie about why they gave themselves priority.
“They’re still being used for public purposes,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said of the traffic lanes. “Now, that is not a good thing to do,” he said of the special treatment. “It is really undesirable. And maybe it should be a crime. But 30 years in prison? That, I’m not sure.”
Michael Levy, a lawyer for Mr. Baroni, said he had the power to call for the new traffic pattern and to give untruthful reasons for doing so. “An authorized official is permitted to lie to subordinates,” he said. Mr. Baroni was sentenced to 18 months in prison in February and reported to a federal corrections facility in Pennsylvania in April, but he was released on bail after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in June.
Ms. Kelly was sentenced to 13 months but will remain free unless the Supreme Court rules against her.
The justices also struggled to decide a second legal question: whether the Port Authority had been defrauded of anything.
“The object of the deception was not to obtain property,” Justice Elena Kagan said, paraphrasing the words of the key federal law under which the defendants were prosecuted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. echoed the point. “The object of the scheme was not to commandeer lanes on the bridge,” he said. “The object was to cause a traffic jam in Fort Lee. And if they could have done it some other way, they would have done it some other way.”
Mr. Roth, the lawyer for Ms. Kelly, drew a distinction between lies resulting in personal gain — expense account fraud, say — and ones told about the allocation of government resources.
“The federal property fraud statute is concerned with cheating the government out of its property rights,” Mr. Roth said. “And that’s just not what we have here. What we have here is an abuse of power, a political abuse of power.”
Allowing criminal prosecutions of such abuses under property fraud laws could have sweeping consequences, Ms. Kelly’s lawyers wrote in their Supreme Court brief. Under the government’s theory, they wrote, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross could be prosecuted for giving what the Supreme Court found in June was a contrived reason for trying to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Mr. Feigin, the government lawyer, said Ms. Kelly and Mr. Baroni had unlawfully commandeered public property. “The defendants in this case committed fraud by telling a lie to take control over the physical access lanes to the George Washington Bridge and the employee resources necessary to realign them,” he said.
Other justices delved into whether Mr. Baroni, who was a Port Authority official at the time, had been authorized to reallocate the lanes. If he had been, Mr. Feigin said, he was free to use the authority even if he had a political motive.
But Mr. Feigin added that Mr. Baroni’s untruthful statements were evidence that he lacked authority.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that did not follow. “Isn’t it often the case that somebody who has the authority to do something may lie about why the person is doing the thing because, if the real reason was exposed, it would cause a furor?” he asked. “That doesn’t show the person doesn’t have the authority to do it.”
Michael Levy, a lawyer for Mr. Baroni, said he had the power to call for the new traffic pattern and to give untruthful reasons for doing so.
Several justices asked no questions or only unilluminating ones, and others interrogated both sides vigorously, making it unusually hard to draw definitive conclusions about where the court seemed headed in the case, Kelly v. United States, No. 18-1059.Several justices asked no questions or only unilluminating ones, and others interrogated both sides vigorously, making it unusually hard to draw definitive conclusions about where the court seemed headed in the case, Kelly v. United States, No. 18-1059.
The Supreme Court has limited the tools available to prosecutors in public corruption cases, notably in a 2016 decision that unanimously overturned the conviction of Bob McDonnell, a former governor of Virginia who was accused of accepting luxury products, loans and vacations from a business executive in return for arranging meetings and urging underlings to consider the executive’s requests.The Supreme Court has limited the tools available to prosecutors in public corruption cases, notably in a 2016 decision that unanimously overturned the conviction of Bob McDonnell, a former governor of Virginia who was accused of accepting luxury products, loans and vacations from a business executive in return for arranging meetings and urging underlings to consider the executive’s requests.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court, said that only formal and concrete government actions could form the basis of a corruption prosecution. Anti-corruption laws, the court has indicated in the McDonnell case and others, were meant to cover only classic bribery and kickbacks.Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court, said that only formal and concrete government actions could form the basis of a corruption prosecution. Anti-corruption laws, the court has indicated in the McDonnell case and others, were meant to cover only classic bribery and kickbacks.