The Constitution got double-whammied Monday in Supreme Court decisions on abortion regulations and gun rights for domestic abusers. There was one optimistic outcome in another case, however. In McDonnell v. United States, eight justices rallied together to nullify the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell.

“In sum,” Justice John Robert wrote for the majority, “an ‘official act’ is a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.’ Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so) — without more — does not fit that definition of ‘official act.’” He concludes, “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

The Wall Street Journal editors conclude this was a positive outcome: “This is a big one for the cause of justice. … The McDonnells had an ethical blind spot, to be kind, and Maureen [Robert’s wife] in particular wasn’t cut out for a life of merely modest affluence. But avarice is not a crime. The problem is that prosecutors didn’t prove that Mr. McDonnell did enough to assist their friend to be guilty of quid-pro-quo corruption.”

The Journal adds, “Self-styled public interest scolds will claim this opens the door to more corruption, but it’s more accurate to say the High Court is protecting against more arbitrary and politicized prosecutions. If routine obligations of elected government can be defined as official acts for the purposes of corruption, then any official can be vulnerable to prosecution for accepting any favor. This means ambitious prosecutors can indict anyone short of St. Francis of Assisi. The ruling in McDonnell v. U.S. continues the good recent work of the federal courts in rebuking overzealous or abusive prosecutions.”

The Heritage Foundation’s John G. Malcolm agrees, writing, “Perhaps it will now be harder for the government to prove quid pro quo corruption, but the clarity that the Supreme Court has now provided, unanimously no less, should be welcome news for those who believe in representative government.”

What the justices did not do is condone the McDonnells’ behavior. Instead, they highlighted the important of impartiality. In short, prosecutors — as they are wont to do — deployed their own distortion to sway the jury. That’s what the Supreme Court is trying to shut down.