• US Supreme Court ruling in Snyder v United States, authored by Brett Kavanaugh, allows state and local officials to accept post-facto gifts and payments as "gratuities" rather than bribes, undermining federal anti-corruption laws.
• In the case, former mayor James Snyder of Portage, Indiana accepted a $13,000 payment from a company after awarding them a contract, arguing the payment was legal as it was not issued as a bribe before the act.
• The ruling redefines "corruption" to only include explicit quid pro quo arrangements, ignoring more subtle forms of influence and persuasion, as critiqued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent.
• The decision highlights behaviors of some Supreme Court justices, like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have accepted lavish gifts and hospitality from wealthy individuals, raising concerns of bias and influence.
• The court's ruling is seen as narrowing the scope of anti-corruption laws by legitimatizing indirect methods of rewarding political favors, resembling structures of influence-peddling not traditionally perceived as corrupt.

Miejsce: Portage, Indiana – kluczowe miejsce związane z przypadkiem Jamesa Snydera.

Data: Orzeczenie wydane w środę – konkretna data nieznana w streszczeniu.

Nazwiska: Brett Kavanaugh, James Snyder, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito – kluczowe osoby powiązane z tematem artykułu.