## Facts

- Robert F. McDonnell, then Governor of Virginia, and his wife developed a relationship with Jonnie R. Williams Sr., CEO of Star Scientific, Inc., which marketed the dietary supplement Anatabloc.
- Williams sought assistance in obtaining research on anatabine (the supplement’s compound) by Virginia public universities.
- Between 2011 and 2013, Williams provided McDonnell and his family about $175,000 in gifts, loans, and other benefits, including luxury travel, a Rolex, clothing for Mrs. McDonnell, and personal loans.
- The government alleged that, in exchange, McDonnell used his office to help Williams and Star Scientific by arranging meetings with state officials, hosting events at the Governor’s Mansion, and contacting officials about university studies.
- A federal jury convicted McDonnell of honest-services wire fraud and Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right, based on a theory that he performed (or agreed to perform) “official acts” in exchange for benefits.
- The trial court instructed the jury that “official act” included acts a public official customarily performs and acts taken in furtherance of longer-term goals or as steps in a series to exert influence; it refused McDonnell’s request to clarify that arranging meetings, attending events, hosting receptions, or making speeches are not “official acts” standing alone.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions.

## Issues

1. What is the proper interpretation of “official act” in 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3) when used to define the conduct underlying honest-services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion prosecutions?
2. Whether jury instructions that treat arranging meetings, hosting events, or contacting other officials as “official acts” (without more) improperly broaden the statutory definition.
3. Whether the convictions must be set aside because the jury may have relied on conduct that is not an “official act” under the correct definition.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated McDonnell’s convictions and remanded.
- The Court held that an “official act” requires a decision or action (or agreement to decide or act) on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” that is specific, focused, and involves a formal exercise of governmental power.
- The Court held that setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event—without more—does not qualify as an “official act.”
- The Court ruled the jury instructions were overbroad and the error was not harmless because the jury could have convicted based solely on non-qualifying conduct.

## Legal Principles

- “Official act” under 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3) has two requirements: (1) a specific and focused “question” or “matter” pending (or that may by law be brought) before an official, and (2) a decision or action (or agreement) on that matter.
- A qualifying “matter” must be concrete and particular; broad policy interests (e.g., general economic development) are insufficient.
- The “decision or action” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power; routine political courtesies are not enough.
- An official may satisfy the “decision or action” requirement by using the power of office to pressure another official to perform a formal act, or by providing advice intended to form the basis for an official act.
- Actions such as arranging meetings, calling officials, or hosting events may serve as evidence of intent or agreement, but are not “official acts” standing alone.
- Overbroad constructions of “official act” raise vagueness and federalism concerns by risking prosecution of commonplace constituent services and political interactions.

## Conclusion

The Court narrowed the meaning of “official act” in federal public-corruption prosecutions, holding that routine access-oriented activities—like arranging meetings or hosting events—do not constitute “official acts” unless tied to a formal governmental decision or action on a specific pending matter, and it vacated the convictions due to overinclusive jury instructions.


McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016)