Also known as: public servants · civil servant · public official
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An officer or employee of government, including legislators and judges, or any person participating as a juror, advisor, consultant, or otherwise in performing a governmental function. The term excludes witnesses.
Parker Phillips, a lawyer, organized a fundraising drive for a municipal arts commissioner who would soon select outside counsel for a public investigation. Phillips solicited checks from clients while his firm submitted a proposal for the work. The commissioner qualifies as a public servant because she holds government office and exercises authority to award legal engagements.
Perry Pratt published a post accusing county food safety director Eloise of ignoring violations at a caterer in exchange for favors. Eloise holds authority over inspections and enforcement. As a public servant, she must prove actual malice to recover for statements about her official conduct.
Pilar Pena, a civilian director at a federal space agency overseeing rocket contracts, sued an aerospace blog for accusing her of fabricating safety certifications. Pena exercises substantial responsibility over government affairs. The blog's statements concerned her role as a public servant, triggering the actual malice requirement.
Pierce Patterson, the state environmental director, filed suit to enjoin emissions from a factory that created a public nuisance. Patterson holds authority as a public official to represent the state in the matter. His status as a public servant supplies standing to maintain the proceeding.
Phoebe Park, the sitting governor, accepted luxury vacations from a businessman seeking favorable regulatory action. Federal prosecutors charged her with honest-services fraud. The governor's position makes her a public servant whose exercise of official discretion is subject to bribery prohibitions.
In November 2009 Robert McDonnell was elected the 71st Governor of Virginia. His campaign focused on promoting business in the state. He spoke about economic development on a daily basis while attending numerous events and referring constituents to meetings with staff and other officials. Shortly after the election Williams had dinner with Governor and Mrs. McDonnell. Williams was the CEO of Star Scientific, a Virginia-based company that developed and marketed Anatabloc, a nutritional supplement made from anatabine. Star Scientific hoped Virginia's public universities would undertake research studies on anatabine pursuant to a grant from Virginia's Tobacco Commission. Over the next two years Williams provided the McDonnells with more than $175,000 in gifts and loans. McDonnell arranged meetings for Williams with state health officials including Dr. Hazel. He hosted a lunch event for Star Scientific at the Governor's Mansion in August 2011. He also directed staff to forward materials and emails regarding Anatabloc research issues at state universities. Additional interactions included a March 2012 meeting with administration officials where McDonnell discussed Anatabloc. In January 2014 the Federal Government indicted McDonnell and his wife Maureen on one count of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, three counts of honest services fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion, six counts of Hobbs Act extortion, and two counts of making a false statement. The indictment alleged that McDonnell accepted the benefits in exchange for performing official actions on an as-needed basis to promote Star Scientific's products. Mrs. McDonnell faced similar charges plus one count of obstructing official proceedings. The case proceeded to a five-week jury trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. At trial Williams testified under an immunity agreement that he provided the benefits to obtain help with testing Anatabloc. McDonnell acknowledged requesting loans and accepting gifts but testified that arranging meetings was routine and that he expected staff only to meet with Williams. Several state officials testified they discussed Anatabloc but took no further action. The district court instructed the jury that official acts include acts a public official customarily performs, including those in furtherance of longer-term goals. McDonnell requested but was denied an instruction that merely arranging meetings or hosting events does not alone constitute an official act. The jury convicted Governor McDonnell on the honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion charges, but acquitted him on the false statement charges. The District Court sentenced him to two years in prison. Following the verdict McDonnell moved to vacate the convictions, arguing the jury instructions were erroneous. He also moved for acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence and unconstitutional vagueness. The district court denied both motions. McDonnell appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the meaning of official act under the federal bribery statute.
View casePriscilla Parks, a police officer, arrested individuals under a city anti-loitering ordinance targeting suspected gang members. The ordinance granted officers broad discretion to order dispersal. The officer's enforcement role marks her as a public servant whose conduct implicates due-process limits on vague statutes.
In 1992 the Chicago City Council enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance after hearings revealing that gang members intimidated residents by loitering in public places. The ordinance made it unlawful for any person to loiter in a public place with one or more persons knowing that at least one of those persons was a criminal street gang member. The ordinance defined loitering as remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose. It required a police officer who reasonably believed a person to be a gang member loitering with others to order the entire group to disperse, and failure to obey the order was punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for not more than six months, or up to 120 hours of community service. Two months after enactment the Chicago Police Department issued General Order 92-4 to provide guidelines to govern its enforcement. The order confined arrest authority to members of the Gang Crime Section and other designated officers, established criteria for identifying street gangs and membership, and directed district commanders to designate enforcement areas where gang presence had a demonstrable effect on law-abiding persons. Those designated areas were not released to the public. During the three years the ordinance was enforced, officers issued more than 89,000 dispersal orders and arrested more than 42,000 people. Respondent Jesus Morales and other individuals were charged with violating the ordinance. Trial courts divided on its constitutionality, with some judges upholding it while eleven others ruled it invalid. The Illinois Appellate Court consolidated the cases, affirmed the invalidations, and reversed convictions in the remaining matters. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseYes. The definition expressly covers any person participating as a juror, advisor, consultant, or otherwise in performing a governmental function.
Witnesses are excluded because they do not exercise governmental functions or hold positions of official responsibility. They merely provide information in proceedings.
Bribery statutes prohibit offering or accepting benefits in exchange for a public servant's exercise of official discretion. The broad definition ensures coverage of legislators, judges, and anyone performing governmental functions.
…views. Thus we have a measure of interference by the Hatch Act and the Rules with what otherwise would be the freedom of the civil servant under the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. And, if we look upon due process as a guarantee of freedom in those fields, there is a corresponding impairment of that right under the Fifth…