Rounding up previews of SCOTUS oral argument in “Bridgegate” case
More than six years after an infamous partial closing of the George Washington Bridge, and more than three years after a few staffers to then-New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were convicted of federal crimes resulting from this incident, the US Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument tomorrow in Kelly v. United States. This affair became known as “Bridgegate,” and here is how the case’s question is presented in the initial petition for certiorari: “Does a public official ‘defraud’ the government of its property by advancing a ‘public policy reason’ for an official decision that is not her subjective ‘real reason’ for making the decision?”
Though this case is more about the reach and application of federal criminal statutes than about sentencing, white-collar cases (and political cases) are often worth watching closely because of how they can skew, both jurists and advocates, the usual political divisions of who is pro-defendant and pro-government. In light of that reality, I am especially interested in how the newer Justices will engage in this case. Helpfully, Kelly has generated lots of previews from others, so I can be content here to do a quick round-up:
-
From Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog, “Argument preview: “Bridgegate” scandal comes to the court“
-
From Ciara Torres Spelliscy at the Brennan Center, “The Supreme Court Considers Political Lies in the Bridgegate Case“
-
From Mark Walsh at the ABA Journal, “Crosstown traffic: SCOTUS considers ‘Bridgegate’ prosecutions“
-
From Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan Sack at Lexology, “A bridge too far? Federalism and the ‘bridgegate’ prosecution“
And back in September, SCOTUSblog had a little on-line symposium on the case, which can be found at this link.