The government cites no section 666 case using that definition, and petitioner is aware of none.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

I, Lisa S. Blatt, counsel for petitioner and a member of the Bar of this Court, certify that the Reply Brief for Petitioner in the above-captioned case contains 5,985 words, excluding the parts of the brief that are exempted by Rule 33.1(d).

Specifically, Blackstone criticized the Romans because, while they forbade bribery, they nonetheless “allow[ed] the magistrate to receive small presents, provided they did not in the whole exceed a hundred crowns in the year.” Ibid. ...

During the contracting process, petitioner personally exchanged dozens of phone calls and text messages with the Buhas—but none with any other bid- ders.

C. Petitioner attempts to support his reading with various canons of construction and clear-statement rules, but none of them can obscure what Section 666 directly and unambiguously says.

I, Terence H. Campbell, counsel for amicus curiae and a member of the Bar of this Court, certify that the Brief for the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner in the above-captioned case contains 2,612 words, excluding the portions that are exempted by Rule 33.1(d).

In an odd reversal of personal liberties, aided by the Circuit Court’s misconstruction of statutory text, federal prosecutions can sidestep a state’s more liberty-protective approach to criminal bribery law and the state’s police power prerogatives on matters that are essentially local in nature.

It is a rejection of the ancient axiom that the higher priority should be to protect from the jaws of prosecution law abiders (even if reckless or naive in their dealings) rather than to zealously pursue those conceivably capable of being found guilty.

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hamilton, accurately set out the history of the changes to § 666, clearly showing how the more ambiguous “for or because of” was exchanged for a more precise metric of scienter, “intent to influence,” and the modifier “corruptly,” strongly signaling the requirement of a quid pro quo element.

of the Constitution, that “without them, the Constitution is denied force, and often meaning.” Id. One of those essential postulates is the notion of federalism; i.e., the “division of power between the federal government and states,” something James Madison believed was no mere organizational plan, but in fact “a double security” necessary to protect individual liberty.7 Some Justices have expressly articulated that concept, notably Justice Scalia who opined that such legal presuppositions could actually be “more important to the safeguarding [of] individual liberties than the Bill of Rights itself.”8 improperly The Seventh Circuit’s opinion expanded the text, meaning, and parameters of § 666(a)(1)(B).

of Comm’rs, 138 N.E.3d 695, 710 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (citing McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 192 (2014)) (noting that “the only interest [the Supreme Court] had found to be legitimate for campaign finance restrictions was the prevention of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance”) (emphasis added) (holding that the

lln tYte Su[remt, tsurt of tbe @nite!

5tuteg No. 23-108 Javns E. Sivyopn, PnrrrloNnn UNrtno Sterps op AMsnrcA, RnSeoNDENT

Supreme Court of the Anited States

I HEREBY CERTIFYthatall parties required to be served, have been served, on this 12" day of February, 2024, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.3, three(3) copies of the foregoing BRIEF OF SEPARATION OF POWERS CLINIC AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERbyplacingsaid copies in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, addressedas listed below.

Respondent.

Syneare SKN.

Notary PUBLIC, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA My Commission Expires June 14, 2025.