In the case of Basim Omar Sabri v. United States in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal bribery statutes could be applied to local officials who misuse federal funds, even if there is no direct connection between their actions and a specific federally funded program. The defendant, Sabri, was a property developer charged with bribing a city council member in Minneapolis for favorable treatment on development projects. He challenged his indictment arguing that it did not allege he had intended to defraud any particular federally-funded program or activity; thus violating his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court rejected this argument unanimously (9-0), stating that Congress has broad authority under the Spending Clause to ensure integrity among those who are entrusted with federal funds at all levels of government - whether directly or indirectly involved in administering them.

In the dissenting opinion for Sabri v. United States, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Stevens, argued that Congress does not have the power to criminalize local bribery without a requirement of proving connection to federal funds. They contended that this interpretation expands Congressional authority beyond its constitutional limits under the Spending Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. The majority's decision allows Congress to regulate any activity if it could potentially affect a project receiving federal funding - an overreach in their view. This broad interpretation undermines state sovereignty and blurs lines between state and federal jurisdiction which are essential for maintaining balance within our system of government.