How the Supreme Court Aided Donald Trump's Sky-High Bribe Scandal

Reports of Donald Trump’s newly acquired airborne abode — a high-end private plane presented by Qatar — are all over the news. A foreign government gifting a plane to the president (for him to keep after he leaves office, no less) struck many as, well, a little bit off. It’s part of a pattern of Donald Trump and his cohort gleefully trying to squeeze every profit and every penny they can get from the office of the presidency — whether it be promoting cryptocurrency while easing regulations On cryptocurrency, hosting conferences and carrying out business activities at Trump properties, among others. Part of this questionable profiteering, including potentially the new Qatar Air Force One, became simpler due to the nation’s top judicial body, which has permitted our administration to function based on the least stringent norms.

Gifts from a foreign government raise obvious questions under the foreign emoluments clause. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution reads “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” A luxury jet seems like a present. It also came from a foreign state. Donald Trump holds an office (of the United States). And he didn’t get Congress’ consent to accept the jet. Pretty straightforward, no?

Despite the efforts made during President Donald Trump's tenure, the United States Supreme Court ultimately removed from legal texts whatever limited prior interpretations existed regarding the foreign emoluments clause—specifically those related to him. Throughout his time in office and continuing today, Trump maintains ownership interests in multiple properties under the "Trump" brand, including various hotel locations where numerous government representatives from abroad have stayed and dined, thus transferring funds directly back to him. Several organizations filed lawsuits alleging that these actions contravened the provisions set forth within the foreign emoluments clause. Certain plaintiff parties secured court victories rejecting Trump’s contentions—that the clause did not impede his business activities—as well as his claim that enforcement would be considered an unreviewable political issue beyond judiciary purview. These matters were brought before the U.S. Supreme Court near the conclusion of Trump's term. However, following Joe Biden’s victory in the November 2020 elections, the Supreme Court decided to deemphasize the ongoing litigation due to their view that it had become irrelevant with Trump leaving office. Additionally, the high court nullified previous judgments effectively erasing all relevant precedential guidance indicating that private individuals could bring suits against sitting presidents over violations of the foreign emoluments clause.

However, the court's involvement in Trump's most recent scheme runs far deeper than the emoluments clause. The Court has consistently maintained that it isn’t actually corrupt to offer substantial sums of money or gifts to political figures, asserting that influence and accessibility arrangements aren’t considered corruption—they simply represent how politics function. Only real The type of corruption addressed by the Court involves what is known as quid pro quo corruption, wherein political figures accept monetary contributions or presents and, in return, pledge to perform specific political actions—such as supporting legislation or overturning an executive decree.

Some discussions about the Qatari flying palace suggest that previous Supreme Court rulings normalizing and legitimizing influence peddling have seeped into societal and political perceptions of corruption. In this vein, both the Trump administration and a New York Times journalist argue that accepting the gift of the flying palace doesn’t constitute bribery or corruption since there was no explicit quid pro quo arrangement involved. However, this does not make it acceptable at all!

Several significant Supreme Court rulings have facilitated access to policymakers via monetary means and gifts, particularly those concerning campaign finance. One prominent case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this instance, the Court famously overturned a federal statute that prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures—funds used independently to advocate for or oppose specific candidates. The rationale was that although Congress had a strong justification for limiting speech related to election spending when aiming to prevent straightforward quid pro quo corruption—an explicit trade of funds or gifts for official actions—the court argued that such restrictions did not apply broadly enough to cover all forms of potential influence. Thus, the decision expanded First Amendment protections regarding political contributions and expenditures. not Have a strong concern about stopping an influx of corporate funds into political processes due to the belief that significant spending "does not lead to actual or perceived corruption" since "[t]he perception of having influence or access… won’t make voters doubt our democratic system." According to the court, seeking influence through financial means is simply part of governmental operations—this practice is as quintessentially American as apple pie, and considering anything different would mark you as unusual.

But the cases laying the groundwork for influence-and-access schemes also include lesser-known decisions that “interpret” anti-corruption statutes by insisting that the Supreme Court’s own definition of corruption (quid pro quo bribery) is the only An acceptable interpretation of bribery can be seen in the ruling of McDonnell v. United States, wherein the Court misapplied a statute stating that giving "anything of value" directly or indirectly to a public official with intent to "influence any official act," constituted illegal activity. This case centered around ex-Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his spouse, who received approximately $200,000 worth of loans, presents, and various perks from the head of a firm specializing in dietary supplements. During this period, Governor McDonnell facilitated meetings between the executive and state officials to deliberate over the business's products, communicated with these authorities regarding the enterprise, organized promotional gatherings for the venture, and claimed personal use of the supplement himself. However, according to the Supreme Court, none of these actions were considered acts of corruption; instead, they represented "[the] fundamental agreement sustaining representative governance": specifically, "public servants listening to citizens' voices and responding accordingly." Essentially, the judiciary asserts that offering gifts as leverage for influence and engagement remains perfectly ordinary and completely aboveboard!

Recently, in the case of United States v. Snyder, it was deemed acceptable for state and local officials to receive tips and gratuities from private individuals for their political actions, provided there wasn’t an explicit quid pro quo arrangement promising these favors for specific official duties. In this instance, a city mayor granted a substantial contract to a trucking firm, after which the same firm employed the mayor at over $10,000 annually for consultancy work. The justices appeared to question what could be amiss with simply saying 'thank you.'

Under the Supreme Court’s logic in that case, even if the flying palace is a thank you tip or gratuity for the administration disbanding the anti-corruption task force at DOJ and cutting back on the enforcement of federal laws increasing transparency for foreign lobbying and restricting bribery of foreign officials, it would still be just fine! Attorney General Pam Bondi, of course, did all of those things. She, along with several other Trumpers, also previously worked as lobbyists for Qatar, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who disbanded the unit.

Multiple Republican judges have shown that interacting with influential individuals holds no corruption, regardless of whether these interactions were paid for. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas has enjoyed several private flights, lavish holidays, and similar perks provided by millionaires who subsequently gain audience with him. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito joined a wealthy hedge fund manager named Paul Singer on a personal flight and an extravagant holiday in Alaska. Meanwhile, both Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have participated in opulent retreats organized by law schools, which allowed them to travel to various European nations under the guise of teaching, though ample leisure time was also included. They argue that such benefits do not constitute bribery since they did not promise specific rulings as part of this arrangement.

If you're curious about how Donald Trump and his supporters got the outlandish notion that he could receive lavish presents from individuals seeking access to the presidency, consider looking at the Supreme Court for answers. They often say that a fish starts rotting from the head—here referring to the top of the judicial branch. I am among many who now view the Supreme Court as partly aligned with the MAGA movement. This encompasses not only "Make America Great Again" but also aspects like turning America into an elaborate grifting scheme.