Jeffrey Skilling was president and chief operating officer of Enron Corporation, the seventh largest company in America in terms of revenue. At least, that is what everyone thought. Ten months into Skilling’s term of office, Enron filed for bankruptcy protection. Its stock, which had been trading at $90 per share, became virtually worthless. A government investigation discovered that company executives had conducted an elaborate conspiracy to prop up Enron’s stock price by overstating the company’s finances.

Skilling was charged with a theft of honest services. Traditionally, this federal statute had been used to prosecute public officials who took bribes or kickbacks. But then prosecutors began to charge employees under this statute for having generally breached their duty to their employer—and that is what they decided to do with Skilling. They alleged that his financial shenanigans constituted a theft of honest services. He was convicted, sentenced to more than 24 years in prison, and ordered to pay $45 million in restitution. Skilling appealed, arguing that the honest services statute was unconstitutionally vague. The Fifth Circuit disagreed and affirmed his conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Questions:

1. Was the honest services statute unconstitutionally vague?

2. What was Skilling’s argument?

3. What is the Court’s response?