(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Tuesday’s conviction of Senator Robert Menendez shows that, despite recent trends at the US Supreme Court, some avenues remain open for prosecutors to hold public officials accountable for crimes. The New Jersey Democrat was convicted in federal court in Manhattan on all 16 counts in an indictment charging him with bribery, extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice and acting as an agent of a foreign government. Menendez has maintained his innocence and has said he will appeal.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has cut back on the application of federal statutes to the conduct of public officials. As a former federal prosecutor, I find this trend concerning — particularly in a time when public confidence in government is particularly low. The Menendez conviction sends an important message that criminal prosecution remains a risk for officials who breach their duty of trust to the people they were elected to serve.
Beginning in 1987, the court has issued several decisions curtailing the application of federal statutes to official misconduct. In McNally v. United States, the court gutted the concept of honest services fraud, a theory that when a government official performs an act on the job for a corrupt purpose, members of the public suffer even if they suffer no monetary loss.
That case involved a state official in Kentucky named Gray (McNally was his co-defendant) who engaged in self-dealing by steering a government contract to an insurance agency.
