The Docket: Quid Pro Quo In Practice

The United States Congress is moving full steam ahead with its impeachment proceedings regarding President Donald Trump's phone call to the president of Ukraine. With the probe focused on whether Trump was asking for a personal favor in the call, the term "quid pro quo" has now become a household phrase.

Translated literally from Latin, "quid pro quo" means "this for that." But Fordham University Law School Professor Jed Shugerman says the term's legal definition is inherently slippery, and actually changes depending on the circumstances.

"In contract law, one of the basic concepts is 'consideration,' meaning 'a benefit.' So that is an exchange, this for that," Shugerman told WNYC's Jami Floyd. "You must have quid pro quo for something to be valid."

Where quid pro quo gets troublesome, though, is when the exchange involves dealings that are corrupt or exploitative. Exchanging money for food at a grocery store is one thing, but trading campaign funds for a seat at the table when legislation is crafted is an entirely different situation. But the legal standard for what constitutes a "bad" quid pro quo has been changing, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar for corruption convictions in 2016 with the unanimous decision to overturn the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. Other cases that also depend on the interpretation of quid pro quo are the retrial of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Bridget Anne Kelly's Supreme Court appeal in the Bridgegate case.

To hear the whole conversation, click "Listen."

The Docket is our series in which WNYC’s All Things Considered host Jami Floyd takes a deep dive into the American legal system.