Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Crandon v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 27, 1990No. 88-931Published

1Concurring in the judgmentJustice Scalia, joined by Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy

I agree with the Court that the Government has failed to prove that any of the petitioners violated 18 U. S. C. §209 (a), and that its claim to a common-law remedy premised upon such a violation accordingly must fail. My reasons, however, are somewhat different. I do not think that payments which are made before or after the term of federal employment are necessarily excluded from § 209(a); but I do think that payments which are neither made periodically dur*169ing the term of federal service, nor calculated with reference to periodic compensation, are excluded.

I

Subsection (a) of § 209 makes…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Muschany v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. International Railway Co. v. DavidsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  5. United States v. MorseDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1922

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API