In June, the Supreme Court held in Snyder v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1947 (2024), that a federal anti-corruption statute applied only to “bribes,” not “gratuities.” The majority interpreted the statute narrowly on the basis of six considerations: text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice. In his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch put the matter more starkly: “Whatever the label, lenity is what’s at work behind today’s decision, just as it is in so many others. Rightly so.” 

What is lenity? It is a rule of statutory construction under which ambiguous criminal laws are interpreted in favor of defendants. For the most part, the Supreme Court has hesitated to rely explicitly on the rule of lenity in its rulings. Yet the rule has made its way into several recent Supreme Court decisions, and Gorsuch in particular has highlighted the importance of lenity to statutory interpretation.