Supreme Court Declines Appeal of Former New York Official in Bribery Case

New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin speaks during a rally in New York City on Nov. 1, 2021. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 16 that former New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin, a Democrat, must stand trial on charges of seeking campaign contributions in exchange for a grant from the state.

The nation’s highest court left in place a March ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that reinstated the federal bribery and wire fraud charges against Benjamin that a federal district court dismissed in December 2022.

The Supreme Court denied the petition in Benjamin v. United States in an unsigned order. The court did not provide reasons for its decision. No justices dissented.

Benjamin, who was appointed lieutenant governor by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, in August 2021, told the Supreme Court in his petition that prosecutors engaged in “extreme … outreach” in “an area of law that demands clarity.”

“Constituents give to candidates they hope will take actions aligned with their interests. Candidates, if elected, take actions that often further the interests of those who helped elect them. This is not bribery; it is democracy.”

In the case, the government has to prove there was an “explicit” quid pro quo agreement to trade the contributions for an official favor, and in recent years the federal courts of appeals “have utterly failed to agree on what ‘explicit’ means and when the standard applies,” the petition said.

Benjamin resigned in April 2022 after he was indicted on the charges.

In his petition, Benjamin recounted that prosecutors said in 2019 that Benjamin forwarded a $50,000 state grant to a nonprofit controlled by a developer from Manhattan’s Harlem neighborhood, which Benjamin represented at the time as a state senator. The developer then gave Benjamin’s reelection campaign thousands of dollars through several checks made out to relatives and a limited liability company, the indictment stated.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a Nov. 8 brief that the Second Circuit was correct to reject Benjamin’s argument that a bribery conviction “based on campaign contributions to a public official may not rest on a quid pro quo inferred from the circumstances.”

The decision does not conflict with any other circuit court’s precedents, and Benjamin’s challenge was brought too early in the criminal proceedings, the government stated.

The Supreme Court “has repeatedly denied in other cases presenting that issue, and it should do the same here,” the brief noted.

The Supreme Court has been making it more difficult in recent years for the federal government to carry out public corruption prosecutions.

For example, in Snyder v. United States, the court tossed the conviction of a former small-town mayor in Indiana who was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity. Specifically, the man was convicted of taking thousands of dollars from a trucking firm after it received a contract.

The high court held that federal law prohibits bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. A bribe involves future behavior; a gratuity involves an act that has taken place.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Benjamin’s attorney, Barry Berke of Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher in New York City, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

No replies were received by publication time.

Isabel van Brugen contributed to this report.