Plain-English summary
Court narrows when private influencers owe a public ‘fiduciary’ duty for honest-services fraud
In Percoco v. United States (2023), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction because the jury was given the wrong legal standard for when a private citizen who influences government can owe a duty of honest services. The Court held the Second Circuit’s test (from United States v. Margiotta) was erroneous and remanded for further proceedings under a correct standard.
Why this matters
The ruling clarifies and narrows when federal criminal law can reach private citizens for corrupting government decisions. It reduces the risk that people with informal political influence will face honest-services fraud convictions based only on their influence, protecting citizens from overly broad corruption prosecutions while still leaving room to punish bribery and clear conflicts of interest.
Who may feel it
- Private citizens who advise, lobby, or have informal influence over government officials
- Political operatives, consultants, and donors
- Prosecutors bringing corruption or honest-services fraud cases
- Defense attorneys representing clients in public-corruption prosecutions
- Public officials and agencies that rely on anti-corruption laws