October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1158

Does a public official lose bribery protection when leaving office?

The dispute centers on whether a person can commit bribery while acting with official power but without a formal government title.

Official caption
Percoco v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the side that brought the case’s counsel stated that bribery presupposes an agent exercising authority for a principal.

    The government’s counsel argued that the side that brought the case’s theory would limit prior precedent in unsupported ways.

    The government’s counsel claimed there is enough evidence for a jury to infer a delegation of power.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of federal bribery laws. It asks if a person must hold a formal office to be charged with selling official power for private gain.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned because he lacked a formal government title during the alleged acts.

The government wants the conviction to stand because the side that brought the case exercised official power regardless of his formal title.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that bribery requires a formal agent who exercises authority on behalf of a principal.

The government argues that official power is fluid and can exist without the formal trappings of an office.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if the side that brought the case’s theory requires formal office to charge someone under the statute.

Justice Alito asked what evidence establishes an agency relationship when the formal holder does not exercise power.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary of federal bribery laws. It determines whether officials can evade prosecution by shedding formal titles while retaining power. The outcome shapes accountability for public servants who trade influence for private gain.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON