Justices Appear Troubled by New Jersey ‘Bridgegate’ Convictions
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court signaled Tuesday that the government may have overreached when it prosecuted two ex-New Jersey officials for their involvement in the “Bridgegate” scandal.
For those who don’t remember, Bridgegate, also known as the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal, stemmed from the abrupt closure on September 9, 2013, of two of three toll lanes at the local street entrance of the bridge in Fort Lee, New Jersey, during the morning rush hour.
The lanes remained closed for a week before the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey intervened.
A fictitious traffic study was used as cover for the change, but prosecutors said the real motive was political payback.
It was later determined that a staff member and political appointees of then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, colluded to create the traffic jams to punish Fort Lee’s mayor for refusing to endorse Christie’s re-election.
Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni were later convicted of fraud and conspiracy in connection with the scheme.
But on Tuesday morning, at least six of the justices suggested at one time or another during oral argument they were troubled by the prosecution.
The arguments before the high court on Tuesday did not focus on whether Kelly or Baroni participated in the traffic scheme.
The question considered was simply whether under the statute, a public official can defraud the government of its property by advancing a public policy reason for a decision that was “not their subjective real reason for making the decision.”
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that despite the fact that Kelly and Baroni worked to create gridlock by reducing the number of bridge toll lanes reserved for Fort Lee traffic from three to one, the formerly reserved lanes were open to other traffic and therefore “still being used for public purposes.”
But Eric Feigin, who argued the case for the Justice Department’s Office of the Solicitor General, maintained Kelly and Baroni’s actions in the case were fraud “in just the same way that it would be fraud for someone with no connection to the Port Authority to impersonate Port Authority supervisors and order Port Authority employees to realign Port Authority lanes.”
“I don’t see how this case works,” Justice Stephen Breyer said.
Though he allowed what happened at the bridge was not a good thing, he questioned if it was a crime.
“They don’t get a free pass simply because Baroni worked for the Port Authority when the evidence showed that he didn’t have the power to direct these resources in this way without telling the lie,” Feigin told the justices. “And they don’t get a free pass simply because their motive happened to be political.”
But Justice Samuel Alito, who was born in Trenton, New Jersey and was the top federal prosecutor in the state before becoming a judge, suggested he was troubled by the government’s argument that Baroni was not authorized to make changes to the bridge access lanes.
“I’ve read these jury instructions several times. There’s nothing in there that would alert a jury, a juror, to the obligation to find that Baroni was unauthorized,” Alito said.
Kelly was weeks from beginning a 13-month sentence last year when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Baroni had begun serving his 18-month sentence but was released from prison after the high court agreed to weigh in.
Both, now free on bail, were present for Tuesday’s arguments, as was Christie, who has long denied knowing about the plan as it was unfolding.
In The News
WASHINGTON (AP) — With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue — whether to ban consideration of race in college admissions. The justices on Monday put off a decision about whether they will hear an... Read More
The Supreme Court this week decided to leave in place a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who claim they developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson talc products. As is their custom, the justices did not comment Tuesday on why they rejected Johnson & Johnson's... Read More
WASHINGTON -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday makes it harder to impose liability on workers who use their employers’ computers for unauthorized purposes. The ruling restricts the Justice Department's authority to prosecute unauthorized computer use under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It also... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to review a lawsuit asking whether it's sex discrimination for the government to require only men to register for the draft when they turn 18. The challenge, originally brought by a men's rights group, asserted that the... Read More
WASHINGTON - In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court tossed a pair of decisions from the 9th U.S. Circuit, holding the appellate court went too far in assuming that an immigrant's testimony was credible unless an immigrant judge said otherwise. Tuesday’s ruling involved a pair of... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that tribal police officers can stop and search non-Native Americans on tribal lands for potential violations of state or federal law. The justices unanimously reversed an appellate ruling in favor of a non-Native motorist who was charged with drug-related... Read More