Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell speaks to members of the media in front of the U.S. Supreme Court April 27 in Washington, DC. | Getty Supreme Court overturns Bob McDonnell’s corruption convictions

A unanimous Supreme Court has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a "boundless" definition of the kinds of acts that could lead politicians to face criminal charges.

The decision from the eight-justice court could make it tougher for prosecutors to prove corruption cases against politicians in cases where there is no proof of an explicit agreement linking a campaign donation or gift to a contract, grant or vote.


The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the government's position that simply agreeing to meet with someone on account of such largesse could be enough to constitute an official act that could trigger a corruption conviction.

"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute," Roberts wrote. "A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."

The justices set forth a straightforward rule: "Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act.’”

In addition, the chief justice warned that accepting the government's stance in the case could chill all sorts of routine interactions between politicians and their supporters.

"Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns—whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm," Roberts wrote.

"The Government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse," the chief justice added.

A jury convicted McDonnell on 11 corruption-related felony counts in 2014, including “honest services” fraud, extortion and conspiracy.

The trial triggered public outrage as evidence showed the Virginia Republican and his wife accepted over $175,000-worth of loans and gifts, such as vacations, designer clothes and a Rolex watch, from a businessman seeking the state’s help in promoting a tobacco-based dietary supplement. McDonnell also borrowed a Ferrari from the businessman, Johnnie Williams, who turned state's evidence and was not prosecuted.

In the court's opinion, Roberts seemed eager to head off criticism that the justices were blessing politicians' brazen attempts to improve their own financial condition through use of their official positions.

However, the chief justice emphasized that there were also risks in allowing prosecutors to decide for themselves what kinds of conduct crossed the line.

"None of this, of course, is to suggest that the facts of this case typify normal political interaction between public officials and their constituents. Far from it. But the Government’s legal interpretation is not confined to cases involving extravagant gifts or large sums of money and we cannot construe a criminal statute on the assumption that the Government will ‘use it responsibly,’” Roberts wrote.

McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison, but never began serving the time after the Supreme Court put his sentence on hold last year.

In a statement, McDonnell thanked his legal team and repeatedly invoked his religious faith.

"From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law. I have not, and would not, betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office," the former governor said. "It is my hope that this matter will soon be over and that my family and I can begin to rebuild our lives."

In an interview Monday, a lawyer for McDonnell hailed the court's unanimous decision as a blunt rebuke of the prosecution.

"The court squarely rejected the entire theory this prosecution was based on from the beginning and embraced the theory we've been articulating literally from day one on this case," said Noel Francisco, the attorney who argued for McDonnell at the Supreme court. "We think it's a vindication for the governor."

McDonnell's wife, Maureen, was also convicted for conspiracy by the same jury and sentenced to a year and a day in prison. She was free pending appeal. Her attorney, William Burck, expressed confidence Monday that her conviction will also be overturned.

"This decision applies no less to our client Maureen McDonnell and requires that her conviction immediately be tossed out as well, which we are confident the prosecutors must agree with," Burck said in a statement. "Mrs. McDonnell, like her husband, was wrongfully convicted. We thank the Supreme Court for unanimously bringing justice back into the picture for the McDonnells."

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente, whose office prosecuted the McDonnells, issued a terse statement about the high court's ruling.

"The U.S. Attorney’s Office is reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision in the McDonnell matter and does not have any further comment at this time," Boente said.

Despite the public outcry over the McDonnells' actions, his challenge to his convictions received a groundswell of support from public officials, ex-prosecutors and former legal advisers to presidents of both major parties.

In a series of amicus briefs filed with the high court, the former officials warned that giving anti-corruption laws the sweeping breadth urged by the Justice Department would have dramatically constrained the normal operation of government.

The Supreme Court noted those briefs in its opinion Monday—the final one delivered before the typical summer break. The ruling also allowed the shorthanded court, through the voice of its chief, to emphasize agreement at the end of a term where the justice deadlocked in a series of cases.