Percoco v. United States

Background

A longtime top aide to New York’s governor took an eight-month break in 2014 to run the governor’s reelection campaign. During that hiatus he accepted $35,000 from a real-estate developer and urged a state agency to drop a labor-union requirement for the developer’s project. The developer got the agency’s concession the next day. The aide was later indicted and tried on, among other charges, a conspiracy count for honest-services wire fraud covering both his time in and out of government.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a private person who influences government can be convicted of depriving the public of “honest services.” The trial judge instructed the jury using a Second Circuit test from Margiotta—asking whether the defendant “dominated and controlled” government business and had a “special relationship” with government workers. The Supreme Court held that this Margiotta-based test is too vague. The Court said a private person can sometimes owe a duty to the public—for example, if they become an actual government agent by agreement—but the Margiotta standard could criminalize ordinary influence without giving fair notice of forbidden conduct. The conviction based on those jury instructions was reversed and the case was sent back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision limits prosecutors’ ability to use a loose “dominate and control” standard to convict private advisers and lobbyists. Prosecutors must instead rely on clearer legal theories—such as proving an actual agency relationship or other established duty—before pursuing federal honest-services charges. The reversal is not a finding of innocence; it sends the case back for additional proceedings consistent with the Court’s guidance.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in the judgment and argued the entire honest-services doctrine remains unworkably vague and urged Congress to clarify the statute.