The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions of former Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas for bribery and fraud. This ruling, filed on August 3, 2026, confirms that Ridley-Thomas engaged in a corrupt scheme that involved funneling funds to benefit his son in exchange for political favors. The decision affects Ridley-Thomas and raises significant concerns about ethics in public office.

Ridley-Thomas was convicted on multiple charges, including conspiracy, bribery, and honest services fraud. The court's ruling emphasizes the seriousness of public corruption and the legal standards for what constitutes a bribe and fraud in the context of public service. This case serves as a reminder of the legal repercussions for public officials who violate their duties.

Background

Mark Ridley-Thomas served on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors from 2008 to 2020. During his tenure, he held significant influence over the County's budget, which exceeds $30 billion. The case against him arose from a scheme involving Marilyn Flynn, the former Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of Southern California (USC). The government accused Ridley-Thomas of facilitating a quid pro quo arrangement where he would support a contract between USC and the County in exchange for a $100,000 donation to a nonprofit that employed his son, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas.

The scheme was uncovered after a whistleblower raised concerns about the financial transactions and the relationship between Ridley-Thomas and Flynn. Following a lengthy investigation, both Ridley-Thomas and Flynn were charged with multiple counts of conspiracy and fraud. Flynn later pleaded guilty to charges and was sentenced to probation.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Ridley-Thomas's convictions, stating that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's findings. The court ruled that the funneling of $100,000 from Ridley-Thomas's campaign to USC and subsequently to the nonprofit constituted a “thing of value” under federal law. The judges stated, "The Government was not required to present direct evidence of Ridley-Thomas’s constituents’ approval or disapproval of his actions to support a conviction for honest services fraud, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient evidence to support a finding of materiality."

The court also addressed Ridley-Thomas's claims regarding the jury instructions and the definition of bribery. The judges concluded that the district court did not err in its instructions and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. The panel included Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Morgan B. Christen, and Anthony D. Johnstone.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for public officials and the standards of conduct expected of them. By upholding these convictions, the Ninth Circuit reinforces the legal definitions of bribery and fraud, particularly in the context of public service. The decision sends a clear message that public officials cannot engage in corrupt practices without facing legal consequences.

The case also highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in government. It raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of elected officials and the potential for conflicts of interest when personal relationships and financial transactions intersect with public duties. This ruling could influence future cases involving public corruption and may encourage stricter scrutiny of similar actions by other officials.

What's Next

Ridley-Thomas has the option to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, though it is unclear if he will pursue this route. There are currently no related cases pending that directly connect to Ridley-Thomas's situation. However, the case may prompt discussions about reforming laws related to public corruption and ethics in government.