Unanimous Supreme Court throws out ‘Bridgegate’ convictions

Law Journals

A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the convictions of two political insiders involved in the “Bridgegate”  scandal that ultimately derailed the 2016 president bid of their ally, then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

The justices said there was evidence of deception, corruption, and abuse of power in the political payback saga that involved four days of traffic jams on the world’s busiest motor-vehicle bridge, the George Washington Bridge spanning the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. But “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.

In the end, the justices concluded that the government had overreached in prosecuting Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni for their roles in the scheme. Kelly was a deputy chief of staff to Christie. Baroni was a top Christie appointee to the Port Authority, the bridge’s operator.

The court’s decision to side with Kelly and Baroni continues a pattern from recent years of restricting the government’s ability to use broad federal laws to prosecute public corruption cases. In 2016, the court overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. In 2010, the court sharply curbed prosecutors’ use of an anti-fraud law in the case of ex-Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling.

Kagan wrote for the court that Kelly and Baroni had acted for “no reason other than political payback.” In devising the traffic jam, they were seeking to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, Mark Sokolich, after he declined to support the reelection bid of Christie, the GOP governor.

To create chaos, on the traffic-heavy first day of school in 2013, Kelly and Baroni schemed to reduce from three to one the number of dedicated lanes onto the bridge from Fort Lee. They created a traffic study as a cover story for their actions.

Kagan said that Kelly and Baroni ”jeopardized the safety of the town’s residents,” and she repeated some of their gleeful plotting in the decision. At one point, Kelly wrote what Kagan called “an admirably concise e-mail” about the plan. It read: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” Later, after the traffic snarls began, Kelly wrote in a text, “Is it wrong that I am smiling?” Kagan noted that they then “merrily kept the lane realignment in place for another three days.”

Related listings

  • Poland's president appoints acting head of Supreme Court

    Poland's president appoints acting head of Supreme Court

    Law Journals 04/27/2020

    Polish President Andrzej Duda on Thursday appointed an acting head of the beleaguered Supreme Court following the retirement of its president, who had vehemently defended its independence.The court under Malgorzata Gersdorf has been critical of the s...

  • Supreme Court sides with government in immigration case

    Supreme Court sides with government in immigration case

    Law Journals 04/23/2020

    The Supreme Court is making it harder for noncitizens who are authorized to live permanently in the United States to argue they should be allowed to stay in the country if they've committed crimes.The decision Thursday split the court 5-4 along ideol...

  • Court issues temporary restraining order on Gov. Kelly's order

    Court issues temporary restraining order on Gov. Kelly's order

    Law Journals 04/19/2020

    A federal judge issued a limited temporary restraining order on Governor Kelly's order banning religious gatherings of ten or more people. The ruling was made by Judge John W. Broomes Saturday evening.Kelly responded, saying, "This is not about relig...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.