Congressional Power, Sabri v. United States

[A18]

Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004)

After petitioner Sabri offered three separate bribes to a Minneapolis councilman to facilitate construction in the city, Sabri was charged with violating 18 U. S. C. §666(a)(2), which proscribes bribery of state and local officials of entities, such as Minneapolis, that receive at least $10,000 in federal funds. Before trial, Sabri moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §666(a)(2) is unconstitutional on its face for failure to require proof of a connection between the federal funds and the alleged bribe, as an element of liability. The District Court agreed, but the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the absence of such an express requirement was not fatal, and that the statute was constitutional under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause in serving the objects of the congressional spending power.

Held: Section 666(a)(2) is a valid exercise of Congress's Article I authority.

[Emsworth]

The decision was unsound.

The elastic clause does not mean that Congress may enact laws that bear any connection whatsoever, no matter how remote, to the exercise of other enumerated powers. Rather, as Justice Thomas suggests, there must be an "obvious, simple, and direct relation" between the statute and the enumerated powers, in order for the statute to be considered necessary and proper.

Just because an entity receives federal funds, it does not follow that every activity of that entity is subject to congressional regulation. Only those activities directly and obviously related to the funding are controllable by the federal government. The federal government might punish bribery, but only if it is somehow connected with the expenditure of these funds. Otherwise, the matter is entirely within the sphere of the state governments.