## Facts

- The City of Peoria, Illinois received federal community development block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
- Peoria designated United Neighborhoods, Inc. (UNI), a private nonprofit, as a subgrantee to administer the federally funded housing rehabilitation program.
- Arthur Dixson and James Lee Hinton, as UNI officers, controlled the expenditure of grant funds and exercised discretion over contractors performing HUD-funded work.
- Contractors testified that Dixson and Hinton solicited and received kickbacks (about 10% of contract value) in exchange for steering or approving federally funded rehabilitation contracts.
- A federal grand jury charged petitioners under 18 U.S.C. § 201, which criminalizes corruptly demanding or accepting anything of value by a “public official” in return for being influenced in an “official act.”

## Issues

1. Whether officers of a private nonprofit subgrantee administering federal block-grant funds, without a direct federal employment or contractual relationship, are “public officials” under 18 U.S.C. § 201(a).
2. Whether § 201(a) turns on formal federal status or on the individual’s functional role and responsibilities in carrying out federal program objectives.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The Court held that petitioners were “public officials” within § 201(a) because, in administering the subgrant, they acted “for or on behalf of the United States” in an official function.
- The Court rejected a limitation of § 201(a) to persons in a formal federal employment, agency, or direct contractual relationship with the federal government.
- The Court concluded that petitioners occupied a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities due to their authority over federal funds and implementation of federal program requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 201(a), “public official” is not confined to formal federal employees or agents; it includes persons acting for or on behalf of the United States in an official function under federal authority.
- The proper inquiry is whether the person occupies a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities.
- Authority to allocate and administer federal program funds, and to make discretionary decisions central to federal objectives, can establish “public official” status even through state or local grant/subgrant structures.
- Construing § 201(a) functionally serves the federal interest in protecting the integrity of federal programs against corruption occurring through private intermediaries.

## Conclusion

The Court held that nonprofit subgrantee administrators with significant discretion over federal grant funds can be “public officials” under 18 U.S.C. § 201(a), and therefore may be prosecuted for bribery related to their administration of federally funded programs.


Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984)