The Supreme Court case United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California in 1998 revolved around the interpretation of a federal law prohibiting illegal gratuities given to public officials. The government alleged that Sun-Diamond Growers, an agricultural cooperative, had provided illegal gifts to then Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. However, the court ruled unanimously in favor of Sun-Diamond Growers stating that for a conviction under this statute it was necessary for prosecutors to prove not just that a gift was given but also demonstrate there was specific intent i.e., the gifts were made with an expectation of influencing official actions or decisions by Espy. This ruling clarified and narrowed down the scope and application of federal laws related to bribery and corruption involving public officials.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C §201(c)(1)(A) was too broad and not in line with its original intent. He contended that this statute should only apply to cases where a public official receives an illegal gratuity specifically for or because of an official act performed or to be performed by such official. The majority's view, according to him, would potentially criminalize many innocent acts as it does not require any connection between the gift received by a public officer and his/her specific actions as a public servant. For instance, under their interpretation even token gifts given out of friendship could be considered illegal if they are given while one is holding office - something he believes Congress did not intend when drafting this law.