## Facts

- Sun-Diamond Growers of California, an agricultural trade association, was indicted for violating the federal illegal-gratuities statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A).
- Count One alleged Sun-Diamond gave things of value to Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy.
- Sun-Diamond had interests in matters pending before Espy, but Count One did not allege that any gift was tied to a particular official act on those matters (or any others).
- The district court denied a motion to dismiss, treated it as sufficient that the gifts were given because of Espy’s official position, and instructed the jury that no connection to a particular official act was required.
- The jury convicted on Count One and the court imposed a fine.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the jury instructions improperly allowed conviction without proof tied to an official act.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the meaning of § 201(c)(1)(A).

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A) requires proof that a gratuity was given “for or because of” a specific “official act,” rather than merely because the recipient held federal office.
2. Whether an indictment and jury instructions under § 201(c)(1)(A) are sufficient if they omit any requirement to identify and prove a particular official act connected to the gift.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment reversing the conviction and remanding for further proceedings.
- The Court held § 201(c)(1)(A) requires proof of a link between the thing of value and a specific “official act” for or because of which it was given.
- The Court agreed the district court’s jury instructions were erroneous because they permitted conviction based only on gifts given due to the official’s position.
- The Court rejected the view that the indictment could be sufficient without reflecting the statute’s specific-official-act requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), the government must prove a connection between a thing of value conferred on a public official and a specific “official act” performed or to be performed.
- “Official act” incorporates a defined category of governmental decisions or actions on a particular “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” not generalized status or access.
- Illegal gratuities do not require a quid pro quo agreement, but they still require an act-specific nexus; bribery under § 201(b) separately requires intent to influence an official act.
- Construing § 201(c)(1)(A) to cover gifts given merely because of office would extend the statute beyond its text and risk criminalizing ordinary, non-act-related gift-giving.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the federal illegal-gratuities statute criminalizes gifts made for or because of an identifiable official act, not gifts motivated only by the recipient’s official position, and it affirmed reversal of Sun-Diamond’s conviction due to act-untethered charging and trial theories.


United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398 (1999)