Kelly v. United States
In a case over politically motivated George Washington Bridge lane closures, the Court unanimously overturned the fraud and conspiracy convictions because the scheme did not aim to obtain money or property, and remanded to the lower courts.· AI-written
140 S. Ct. 1565 · No. 18-1059 · 2019 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 7, 2020 · argued Jan 14, 2020
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: fraud
Majority opinion: Elena Kagan
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Kelly won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Kelly 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.
Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. 391 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the 2013 Fort Lee lane closure scandal, also known as "Bridgegate". The case centered on whether Bridget Anne Kelly, the chief of staff to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who was running for reelection at the time, and Bill Baroni, the Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, improperly used lane closures on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic jams as a means of retaliation against Mark Sokolich, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, when he refused to support Christie's reelection campaign. While lower courts had convicted Kelly and Baroni on federal fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy charges, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the convictions in its May 2020 ruling, stating that such charges could not apply as "the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property", and remanded their cases back to the lower courts.
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 2019 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Elena KaganWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined 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
- KellyPerson convicted of crime
- 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
- 18 U.S.C. 1343
- 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.
- May 7, 2020DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Kelly won.
- Jan 14, 2020ArguedArgued · 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, Third Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New Jersey 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
- 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
- McDonnell v. United States579 U.S. 550Jun 27, 2016 · 579 U.S. 550Criminal 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 argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.