This story has been updated with additional information.
Former Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld will no longer be a convicted felon, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order April 6 that will allow the case against him to be thrown out.
The Supreme Court said it is sending the case back to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will consider a motion filed last year by the Justice Department to dismiss the case entirely.
The unsigned order says: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted … and the case is remanded to the (6th Circuit) for further consideration in light of the pending motion to dismiss the indictment.”
Ken Katkin, a professor at Northern Kentucky University’s Chase College of Law who has followed the case since it began, called it “a big victory for Sittenfeld.”
Katkin said the outcome is essentially the same as if the Supreme Court heard oral arguments and then issued a ruling.
“The court ultimately is saying we don’t want to hear the case because there’s not a dispute between Sittenfeld and the government about what should happen,” he said.
Although Sittenfeld was pardoned in May 2025 by President Donald Trump, that pardon only meant he wouldn’t serve additional prison time for charges he was convicted of in 2022.
A jury in federal court found Sittenfeld guilty of bribery and attempted extortion after prosecutors said he accepted political donations in exchange for his support of a development project. But because of appeals his sentence was delayed. He reported to prison in January 2024 and served about four and half months before the 6th Circuit released him while its decision was pending.
The federal appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, ultimately upheld the conviction but signaled to the Supreme Court that it should review the case.
Then in November 2025, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to throw out P.G. Sittenfeld’s conviction, saying it wanted “to give full effect” to Trump’s pardon of Sittenfeld and “avoid any remaining doubts about its scope.”
Eric Petry, whose work at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice focuses on ethics and government, said the Supreme Court’s order doesn’t address one of the main underlying issues the Sittenfeld case raised − the line between what candidates are allowed to do to raise money and bribery.
“Where that line falls, there is still some legal ambiguity,” Petry said.
Sittenfeld had wanted the Supreme Court to weigh in, saying he wanted to protect people who run for political office in the future.
In a social media post after the order was issued, Sittenfeld said: “No one anticipates the wild, tumultuous ride of a prosecution, trial, prison, a presidential pardon, and now, victory in the Supreme Court. While the ‘plot’ of these recent chapters has, in different moments, brought shock and difficulty, I am sincere in saying that 99% of the time, I have remained grateful and upbeat.”
One of his attorneys, Noel Francisco, a former U.S. Solicitor General, said in a statement that Sittenfeld’s acceptance of contributions to his political action committee “did not violate any criminal law, and his prosecution was an affront to the First Amendment.”
“Elected officials accept campaign contributions from supporters every day,” Francisco said, “and prosecuting them for engaging in this type of routine political activity based on an ‘implicit bribery’ theory is a dangerous step toward the criminalization of politics.”
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: ‘A big victory’: Supreme Court paves way for vacating PG Sittenfeld’s conviction
Reporting by Kevin Grasha, Cincinnati Enquirer / Cincinnati Enquirer
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
