Supreme Court Narrows Scope of "Honest Services" Law

Federal prosecutors' use of the "Honest Services" law against fraud will be limited significantly after Supreme Court Justices decide it is unconstsitutionally vague.  The court said that a broad interpretation of he law that made it a crime to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest service," should be limited to offenses such as bribes and kickbacks.  Three Justices went further than the majority by recommending that the law should be struck down entirely rather than just limited.  The decision will have implications for cases against former Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevish and New York politician Joseph L. Bruno, and calls into question the fraud convictions of former Enron chief Jeffrey K. Skilling and newspaper executive Conrad M. Black.

Critics of the law say it provides defendents with insufficient notice of what crimes it encompassses and gives prosecutors too much discretion. Enron's Skilling was charged with manipulating the company's financial results and misleading investors. Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that although those acts may be criminal, they are not violations of the honest services law because prosecutors did not allege that Skilling solicited or received side payments for making those misrepresentations.