McDonnell v. United States
579 U.S. 550 · No. 15-474 · 2015 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 27, 2016 · argued Apr 27, 2016
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: fraud
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Vacated and remanded. McDonnell won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
McDonnell was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the appeal of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell's conviction for honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion. At issue on appeal was whether the definition of "official act" within the federal bribery statutes encompassed the actions for which McDonnell had been convicted and whether the jury had been properly instructed on this definition at trial.
In light of the Court's findings, U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis III of Virginia dropped seven of 10 charges for which former Representative William J. Jefferson of New Orleans was convicted in 2012. He ordered him released from prison on October 5, 2017, pending a new sentence or action from the government.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2015 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- McDonnellGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Maryland)
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- honest services wire fraud
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 27, 2016DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: vacated and remanded. McDonnell won.
- Apr 27, 2016ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
26 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: fraud, newest first.
- Kousisis v. United States145 S. Ct. 1382May 22, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1382Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Thompson v. United States145 S. Ct. 821Mar 21, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 821Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Dubin v. United States599 U.S. 110Jun 8, 2023 · 599 U.S. 110Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Ciminelli v. United States598 U.S. 306May 11, 2023 · 598 U.S. 306Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Percoco v. United States598 U.S. 319May 11, 2023 · 598 U.S. 319Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Kelly v. United States140 S. Ct. 1565May 7, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1565Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Lagos v. United States138 S. Ct. 1684May 29, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1684Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Shaw v. United States137 S. Ct. 462Dec 12, 2016 · 137 S. Ct. 462Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Salman v. United States137 S. Ct. 420Dec 6, 2016 · 137 S. Ct. 420Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Yates v. United States574 U.S. 528Feb 25, 2015 · 574 U.S. 528Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Loughrin v. United States573 U.S. 351Jun 23, 2014 · 573 U.S. 351Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Weyhrauch v. United States561 U.S. 476Jun 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 476Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Jeffrey K. Skilling v. United States561 U.S. 358Jun 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 358Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- David B. Pasquantino, Carl J. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts v. United States544 U.S. 349Apr 26, 2005 · 544 U.S. 349Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. Don King, et al.533 U.S. 158Jun 11, 2001 · 533 U.S. 158Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Carl W. Cleveland v. United States531 U.S. 12Nov 7, 2000 · 531 U.S. 12Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Garrit Bates v. United States522 U.S. 23Nov 4, 1997 · 522 U.S. 23Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Raymond J. Moskal, Sr. v. United States498 U.S. 103Dec 3, 1990 · 498 U.S. 103Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Schmuck v. United States489 U.S. 705Mar 22, 1989 · 489 U.S. 705Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Carpenter et al. v. United States484 U.S. 19Nov 16, 1987 · 484 U.S. 19Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- American National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago et al. v. Haroco, Inc., et al.473 U.S. 606Jul 1, 1985 · 473 U.S. 606Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., et al.473 U.S. 479Jul 1, 1985 · 473 U.S. 479Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Liparota v. United States471 U.S. 419May 13, 1985 · 471 U.S. 419Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- United States v. Maze414 U.S. 395Jan 8, 1974 · 414 U.S. 395Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Parr et al. v. United States363 U.S. 370Jun 13, 1960 · 363 U.S. 370Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Bridges et al. v. United States346 U.S. 209Jun 15, 1953 · 346 U.S. 209Criminal procedure4–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.