LA Focus: Ridley-Thomas Asks Ninth Circuit to Rehear Case, Warns Ruling Turns “Reputation” Into A Federal Crime

Staff Report | September 16, 2026

Mark Ridley-Thomas asks the Ninth Circuit to revisit his bribery conviction, arguing its ruling could treat reputational benefits as a federal “thing of value.”

LOS ANGELES — Attorneys for Dr. Mark Ridley-Thomas filed a petition today asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to rehear his case, including rehearing en banc before an 11-judge panel, arguing that the three-judge panel’s August 3 decision dramatically expands federal bribery law and potentially exposes public officials across the Ninth Circuit to prosecution for the ordinary realities of political life.

The petition puts the central question plainly: “This case presents a question of first impression in this Circuit: in a federal bribery scheme, must the predicate ‘thing of value’ enrich the charged public official (or his designee)?”

Its answer is equally direct: “Ample precedent dictates a simple answer: Yes.”

The Ninth Circuit panel held otherwise, concluding that a “thing of value” can encompass subjective reputational benefits even when the public official receives no financial enrichment.

Ridley-Thomas’s attorneys argue that the ruling puts the Ninth Circuit in conflict with other federal appellate courts that have rejected similar efforts to transform intangible political or professional benefits into federal bribery. The petition points specifically to the Seventh Circuit, where neither “psychic” benefits nor “political favors” qualify as things of value, and the First Circuit, where “professional benefits” do not qualify.

The petition cites United States v. Thompson, United States v. Blagojevich, and United States v. Abdelaziz in support of that argument.

Dr. Ridley-Thomas was convicted in 2023 on charges stemming from a $100,000 donation his campaign committee made to USC. The university then directed those funds to a community-based nonprofit.

A federal jury acquitted Dr. Ridley-Thomas on 12 of the 19 counts. He was sentenced to 42 months in federal prison and has remained free on bail while appealing. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed his convictions on August 3.

At the heart of the rehearing petition is what Ridley-Thomas’s attorneys say the government’s bribery theory lacked: enrichment.

“Ridley-Thomas derived no enrichment from the alleged bribe, and the government suffered no loss,” the petition states. “He gained only reputational benefits, with no objective value, from donating his funds to USC rather than funding Sebastian’s nonprofit directly. A purely reputational benefit should not be a sufficient predicate for liability.”

The implications, his attorneys argue, extend far beyond this case. If enhancing or protecting a public official’s reputation can itself constitute a “thing of value” for purposes of federal bribery law, the petition contends, the boundary between criminal corruption and ordinary political conduct becomes dangerously uncertain.

The petition also argues that the panel’s decision runs counter to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting expansive federal corruption prosecutions.

Over the past 16 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed the reach of federal public-corruption and honest-services theories, including in Skilling v. United States, McDonnell v. United States, Percoco v. United States, and Snyder v. United States.

Quoting Snyder, the petition warns that an overly expansive interpretation of federal corruption law “would create traps for unwary state and local officials.”

It also invokes Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence in Percoco: “[T]o this day, no one knows what ‘honest-services fraud’ encompasses.”

Ridley-Thomas’s attorneys argue that the panel decision compounds precisely that uncertainty by allowing an inherently subjective concept — reputational benefit — to serve as the “thing of value” underlying a federal bribery prosecution.

The rehearing petition separately challenges the panel’s treatment of Ridley-Thomas’s jury-selection claim.

His attorneys argue that the court should recognize a Batson challenge based on the intersectional discrimination Black women may experience during jury selection rather than requiring claims of race and gender discrimination to be considered separately.

Citing an amicus brief submitted by Black law professors nationwide, the petition urges the Ninth Circuit to recognize race-and-gender-defined protected groups in order “to fulfill Batson’s promise of rooting out insidious discrimination in the jury selection process.”

The petition concludes: “For these reasons, Ridley-Thomas respectfully requests panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.”

The Ninth Circuit will now determine whether the three-judge panel will rehear the case or whether rehearing en banc will be granted.