## Facts

- Basim Omar Sabri, a Minneapolis real estate developer and landlord, sought approvals for a hotel/retail project.
- Sabri offered bribes to a Minneapolis city council member to influence matters affecting his development.
- The council member served on a community-development body that administered neighborhood revitalization funds, including substantial federal funding.
- Minneapolis, through relevant entities, received more than $10,000 annually in federal funds.
- A federal grand jury indicted Sabri under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) for bribing an agent of a state or local government receiving at least $10,000 in federal benefits in a year, in connection with transactions of $5,000 or more.
- Sabri brought a facial challenge, arguing the statute was unconstitutional because it did not require proof that the alleged bribe affected federal funds or a particular federal program.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) exceeds Congress’s Article I authority by criminalizing bribery involving agents of federally funded state or local entities without requiring proof that the bribe affected federal funds or a specific federal program.
2. Whether the statute is a valid means, under the Spending Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, to protect federal expenditures from corruption risks at the recipient-entity level.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding § 666(a)(2).
- The Court held that § 666(a)(2) is constitutional under Congress’s Spending Clause power, as supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause.
- The Court rejected the argument that the statute must include a “jurisdictional” element requiring proof that the bribe had a direct connection to specific federal dollars.
- The Court treated Sabri’s facial challenge as insufficient because the statute has plainly legitimate applications and includes limiting thresholds tied to federal funding and transaction size.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may enact measures reasonably related to safeguarding federal funds distributed to state and local entities, including criminal prohibitions aimed at corruption that can compromise federally funded operations.
- Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress need not require proof that a particular bribe affected identifiable federal dollars when federal funds are commingled and corruption at the recipient entity can threaten federal spending objectives.
- Facial invalidation is generally disfavored outside limited contexts; a challenger must show the law lacks any legitimate sweep, which is not established where statutory thresholds confine the statute’s reach.
- Federalism concerns do not invalidate § 666(a)(2) where the statute targets bribery involving agents of entities receiving significant federal assistance and is framed as ancillary to the federal spending power rather than a general police power.

## Conclusion

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) permissibly protects federal spending programs by criminalizing bribery of agents of state and local entities receiving substantial federal funds, without requiring the government to prove a direct effect on specific federal dollars or a discrete federal program.


Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004)