This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that a private citizen cannot be convicted of honest‑services fraud. The case arose from payments that former public official Joseph Percoco accepted while he was out of office.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Joseph Percoco)
According to Petitioner, percoco argued that a private citizen cannot commit or conspire to commit honest‑services wire fraud because he had no duty of honest services to the public.
Government
The Government argued that the jury instructions were harmless and did not accurately state the law, but it did not defend them.
Jacob M. Roth (Counsel for Petitioner)
According to Jacob M. Roth, bribery requires an agent who exercises authority on behalf of a principal; a private citizen who lacks such authority cannot be guilty of bribery.
Ms. Reaves (Counsel for Government)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
JUSTICE THOMAS: Counsel, let's assume that Petitioner did not resign much more than, say, one afternoon and then engaged in this conduct. Do you think you would still be able to make the exact same argument?
JUSTICE KAGAN: So, Mr. Roth, I understand what you're saying, that the -- that the government didn't prove the kind of facts.
JUSTICE BARRETT: So you're asking for a bright line even if it leads to the situation Justice Kagan hypothesizes?
According to Justice Gorsuch, jUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah. Where do they come from, is my question.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. I think Mr. Roth would say that's an agent, all right? I mean, because Mr. Roth has a way to deal with that. He -- he says, you know, you don't have to be, like, on the books if there's been that clear a delegation from the principal.
According to Justice Sotomayor, jUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So please tell me why it can't be simply an agent, meaning, why can't we just simply -- instead of this functional whatever, government official, or reliance and control, as the Second Circuit called it, why can't the charge be something as simple as are you acting as an agent?
- [1] 82f5689c2d8a316e2f04-r1-c9b6985259972ea2.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 82f5689c2d8a316e2f04-r1-c9b6985259972ea2.pdf, p. 7
- [3] 82f5689c2d8a316e2f04-r1-c9b6985259972ea2.pdf, p. 24
- [4] 82f5689c2d8a316e2f04-r1-c9b6985259972ea2.pdf, p. 44
- [5] 82f5689c2d8a316e2f04-r1-c9b6985259972ea2.pdf, p. 65
- [6] 82f5689c2d8a316e2f04-r1-c9b6985259972ea2.pdf, p. 66
What the Court decided
The Court held that a private citizen cannot be convicted of honest‑services fraud.
Justice Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Why it matters
The decision limits the reach of the honest‑services fraud statute to public officials, preventing its application to private citizens who lack a fiduciary duty to the public.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 545b2faa550251d42d50-r1-5f3b062f51237430.pdfopinion
- 82f5689c2d8a316e2f04-r1-c9b6985259972ea2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.