Blagojevich v. United States

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Issues: (1) Whether, when the government prosecutes a public official for soliciting campaign contributions in an alleged violation of the Hobbs Act or other federal anticorruption laws, the government must prove the defendant made an “explicit promise or undertaking” in exchange for the contribution per McCormick v. United States, as five circuits require, or “only . . . that a public official has obtained a payment . . . knowing that [it] was made in return for official acts per Evans v. United States, as three other circuits hold; and (2) whether a district court may decline to address a defendant’s nonfrivolous argument that a shorter sentence is necessary to avoid “unwarranted sentence disparities,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), so long as it issues a sentence within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 10th Circuits hold, in conflict with the law of the majority of circuits.