WASHINGTON — A federal law that makes it a crime to deprive the public or one’s employer of “honest services” is a favorite of prosecutors on the hunt for corrupt politicians and self-dealing corporate honchos.
But it found few admirers Tuesday at the Supreme Court.
From one end of the bench to the other, and across the court’s notable ideological divide, justices took turns criticizing the 1988 law that makes it a crime to “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”
The most frequent complaint was that is it so vague that it is impossible for the average person to know what is being made illegal.
“Perhaps there are 150 million workers in the United States,” Justice Stephen Breyer told the government lawyer defending the law. “I think possibly 140 (million) of them would flunk your test.”
By the end of two hours of oral arguments, the debate seemed to be how the court could limit the reach of the law or whether to simply declare it unconstitutionally vague.
To decide the honest-services law, the court has taken three cases, including one from newspaper tycoon Conrad Black. He argues that he should not have been convicted without the government proving that his unusual pay arrangement cheated Hollinger International, the company he once headed.
Black’s case was heard Tuesday along with that of former Alaska state Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch. He says he should not be the subject of federal prosecution because no state law required him to disclose that he was looking for legal work with an oil-services firm at the same time the company was lobbying him on a tax bill.
In the spring, the court will hear an appeal from former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling, who contends that the government needed to prove he was trying to line his own pockets with the fraudulent accounting scheme that brought down the giant company.
Skilling says his actions were to save the company.
