Podcast appearances and mentions of Kelly V United

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Litigation partners Judd Littleton and Julia Malkina are joined by Nicky Friedlander and Kamil Shields, members of S&C's Criminal Defense and Investigations Group, in a continuation of S&C's Supreme Court Business Review podcast series. Former federal prosecutors Nicky and Kamil discuss two of the Supreme Court's decisions from last term in the criminal defense and investigations area. First, they discuss Kelly v. United States, which overturned the convictions in the so-called “Bridgegate” scandal, limiting the reach of the federal fraud statutes.  Second, they discuss Liu v. SEC, which considered the scope of the SEC's disgorgement authority in federal court. Nicky and Kamil share their insights on the implications of these decisions for businesses and practitioners. S&C's Criminal Defense & Investigations Lawyers in the Firm's Criminal Defense and Investigations Group (CDIG) represent clients around the world in high-stakes matters relating to white-collar criminal defense, regulatory enforcement and internal investigations. The group includes 12 former federal and state prosecutors; former bank regulatory counsel; and leading practitioners in banking, securities and commodities regulation and enforcement. The team boasts extensive trial experience, having collectively handled more than 125 criminal trials in federal and state courts. S&C's Appellate Practice S&C's appellate practice draws on the experience of 11 former U.S. Supreme Court clerks and more than 160 clerks to judges on all 13 federal courts of appeals and many state courts and international tribunals. S&C lawyers have achieved success for the Firm's clients in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and administrative agencies, state supreme and appellate courts, and numerous international tribunals. S&C's Litigation Practice Our Litigation Group draws upon S&C's deep experience in corporate, financial and transactional law, forming integrated teams that handle any issue that may arise. We manage matters through every stage of the litigation life cycle, before any court, arbitration panel or regulatory agency.  

Bridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as a political punishment against the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey for refusing to endorse the Governor re-election. On appeal, Bridget Anne Kelly v. United States was the latest in a series of political corruption cases to reach the Supreme Court. In an unanimous decision written by Justice Kagan, the Court ruled that Kelly and Baroni’s acts did not amount to defrauding the government, and reversed their convictions. Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, will offer his thoughts on the implications of the ruling. Featuring:-- Mr. Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Bridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as a political punishment against the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey for refusing to endorse the Governor re-election. On appeal, Bridget Anne Kelly v. United States was the latest in a series of political corruption cases to reach the Supreme Court. In an unanimous decision written by Justice Kagan, the Court ruled that Kelly and Baroni’s acts did not amount to defrauding the government, and reversed their convictions. Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, will offer his thoughts on the implications of the ruling. Featuring:-- Mr. Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

In this clip from the latest episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, "Water Under the Bridgegate," co-hosts Preet Bharara and Anne Milgram break down the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Kelly v. United States to overturn the fraud convictions of two members of former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s administration — and the implications of that decision on the future of public corruption prosecutions.  Listen to the full episode with a free two-week trial of the CAFE Insider membership. REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS BRIDGEGATE Kelly v. United States (2020), the unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the convictions of former NJ Governor Chris Christie’s associates for their roles in Bridgegate McDonnell v. United States (2015), Supreme Court precedent which narrowed the legal definition of public corruption  Skilling v. United States (2009), the Supreme Court case concerning the Enron scandal which significantly curtailed the scope of the “honest services” fraud statute  18 U.S. Code § 1343, Fraud by wire, radio, or television 18 U.S. Code § 666, Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds 18 U.S. Code § 241, Conspiracy against rights Doing Justice, Preet’s book, in which he discusses prosecuting bad behavior under imperfect statutes  President Trump’s tweet congratulating Chris Christie on the Kelly decision, 5/7/20

Regarding the wore fraud charges not being appropriate.

On Jan. 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Kelly v. United States, a case asking whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not that official’s subjective “real reason” for making the decision.In 2013, in a New Jersey scandal known as “Bridgegate,” petitioners William E. Baroni, Jr. and Bridget Anne Kelly manufactured a grid-lock traffic jam in Fort Lee, New Jersey after the mayor refused to endorse then-Governor Chris Christie’s re-election campaign. Under the guise of a “traffic study” the two limited Fort Lee motorists’ access to the George Washington Bridge--the busiest bridge in the world--over the period of four days coinciding with the local school district’s first week of school. Baroni and Kelly were indicted in 2015 for conspiracy to obtain by fraud, knowingly convert, or intentionally misapply property of an organization receiving federal benefits, the underlying offense itself (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A)), conspiracy to commit wire fraud, actual wire fraud, and conspiracy against civil rights. A jury convicted both defendants on all counts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and vacated the civil rights convictions, but affirmed all other judgments of conviction. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, however, to consider whether a public official can “defraud” the government of its property by advancing a public policy reason for an official decision that was not actually the public official’s subjective reason for making the decision.To discuss the case, we have Erin Sheley, associate professor of law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Jan. 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Kelly v. United States, a case asking whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not that official’s subjective “real reason” for making the decision.In 2013, in a New Jersey scandal known as “Bridgegate,” petitioners William E. Baroni, Jr. and Bridget Anne Kelly manufactured a grid-lock traffic jam in Fort Lee, New Jersey after the mayor refused to endorse then-Governor Chris Christie’s re-election campaign. Under the guise of a “traffic study” the two limited Fort Lee motorists’ access to the George Washington Bridge--the busiest bridge in the world--over the period of four days coinciding with the local school district’s first week of school. Baroni and Kelly were indicted in 2015 for conspiracy to obtain by fraud, knowingly convert, or intentionally misapply property of an organization receiving federal benefits, the underlying offense itself (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A)), conspiracy to commit wire fraud, actual wire fraud, and conspiracy against civil rights. A jury convicted both defendants on all counts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and vacated the civil rights convictions, but affirmed all other judgments of conviction. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, however, to consider whether a public official can “defraud” the government of its property by advancing a public policy reason for an official decision that was not actually the public official’s subjective reason for making the decision.To discuss the case, we have Erin Sheley, associate professor of law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Welcome back to the Politics of Prosecution Podcast! This podcast examines the interaction between politics, broadly defined, and criminal prosecution on the local, state and federal levels. Our goal is to produce a variety of shows using different media. This is our second series. It highlights current events where the politics of prosecution intersect and is produced by student volunteers and High Point University Criminal Justice professor Scott Ingram. The second episode in this series explores the arguments presented to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelly v. United States. The case questions the limits of property as applied to public corruption prosecutions. The case originated with the closure of several lanes of the George Washington Bridge that caused massive traffic delays. The Port Authority closed the lanes in retaliation for the Fort Lee, New Jersey mayor's refusal to endorse New Jersey governor Chris Christie for re-election. Following her conviction for her role in the closure, Bridget Kelly appealed claiming that the scheme did not appropriate any property. She lost in each court up to the Supreme Court but may have found some sympathetic ears at the Supreme Court as the Court has taken steps in recent years to limit the scope of the fraud statutes, especially in public corruption cases. This episode explores whether that trend will continue. The sources used for reference in this episode are: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1059/116047/20190917150049217_18-1059%20ts.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1059/123477/20191122174249018_18-1059bsUnitedStates.pdf 18 USC 666 18 USC 1343 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/350/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-474/#tab-opinion-3590961 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1394 https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-analysis-justices-tackle-convictions-arising-from-bridgegate-scandal/ https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/18/opinions/supreme-court-bridgegate-case-rodgers/index.html https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-files-supreme-court-brief-in-bridgegate-case https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1059 A special thank you goes to HPU's Media Services Librarian Josh Harris for allowing us to use the Mini-Studio and his outstanding recording equipment. Taylor Irish performed the editing this week. Please follow us on: Twitter: @Poli_Pros Instagram: Poli.n.Pros You can find this podcast on iTunes and Spotify. If you have comments, questions, concerns or criticisms, you can email us at poli.n.pros@gmail.com

In the very first live show, Strict Scrutiny goes blue at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor!  The full crew recaps two arguments from the January sitting (Kelly v. United States  and Thole v. US Bank) and notes some uncomfortable interactions inside and outside of One First Street. They also discuss upcoming student conventions for the American Constitution Society and People’s Parity Project after Leah and Melissa explain to Kate and Jaime what GTL means. Thanks to our hosts, the ACS student chapter at the University of Michigan!

QUESTION PRESENTED: 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? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

Bridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as an elaborate punishment to the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey for refusing to endorse Governor Chris Christie for re-election. In Bridget Anne Kelly v. United States, the latest in a series of political corruption cases to reach the Supreme Court, the justices will consider whether these acts can amount to defrauding the government. Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, discusses the implications of the case and give his thoughts on oral argument. Featuring:-- Mr. Steve Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Bridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as an elaborate punishment to the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey for refusing to endorse Governor Chris Christie for re-election. In Bridget Anne Kelly v. United States, the latest in a series of political corruption cases to reach the Supreme Court, the justices will consider whether these acts can amount to defrauding the government. Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, discusses the implications of the case and give his thoughts on oral argument. Featuring:-- Mr. Steve Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Kelly v. United States | 01/14/20 | Docket #: 18-1059

Kelly v. United States

A case in which the Court held that Baroni and Kelly, who executed the New Jersey “Bridgegate” political retribution scheme against Fort Lee’s mayor, did not violate the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws because they did not aim to obtain money or property from the federal Port Authority.