Dixson v. United States - 465 U.S. 482, 104 S. Ct. 1172 (1984)

Rule:

The United States Supreme Court agrees that 18 U.S.C.S. § 201(a) is accurately characterized as a comprehensive statute applicable to all persons performing activities for or on behalf of the United States, whatever the form of delegation of authority. To determine whether any particular individual falls within this category, the proper inquiry is not simply whether the person signs a contract with the United States or agrees to serve as the government's agent, but rather whether the person occupies a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities. Persons who hold such positions are public officials within the meaning of § 201 and liable for prosecution under the federal bribery statute.

Facts:

The City of Peoria received two federal block grants from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The city then designated a community-based social service organization to be the city's subgrantee in charge of administering the federal block grant funds. The organization subsequently hired petitioners to act as officers in charge of administering the programs. Later, a federal grand jury named the petitioners in an indictment which charged that as "public officials" under 18 USCS 201(a) they had sought a series of bribes in return for being influenced in regard to awarding housing rehabilitation contracts in violation of 18 USCS 201(c)(1), (2). Before trial, the petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that they were not "public officials" within the meaning of the federal statute. Their motions were denied, and they were convicted as charged and sentenced following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The petitioners appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision.

Issue:

Were the officers of a private, non-profit corporation administering and expending federal community development block grants “public officials” for the purposes of the federal bribery statute?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the petitioners were "public officials" within the meaning of 18 USCS 201(a), and therefore were subject to prosecution under the federal bribery statute, since any person occupying a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities was a "public official" under 201(a), a contract or agency relationship with the United States not being necessary, and the two officers held such a position by virtue of their operational responsibilities for administering the program, of their having been charged with abiding by federal guidelines, and of their having accepted responsibility for distributing the funds.