That article is bad. It ignores the ruling specifically pointing out that 18 USC 201 among other laws does cover 'gratuities' as well as bribes, and it misleadingly claims that "[t]he Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anticorruption law" when referring to 18 USC 666 (Federal Program Bribery, AKA "The Beast") which is just not true. You can see it's not true in the holding:

> Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.

Nowhere in there do they declare any part of 18 USC 666 unconstutional, which is what one usually takes "struck down" to mean.

The LA Times is at least correct in stating that the ruling clarifies bribes come before the act and gratuities come after, with different legal effect, but they seem to leave out any discussion of this bit inexplicably:

> For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15-year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast, if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities law sets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c).

Point being, no, gratuities aren't really legal either, they're just punished under different statutes. David G. Savage could've just used this line from the ruling as a much more accurate summary:

> Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666.

And why did they do this? Because technically giving an apple to your teacher would be Federal Program Bribery otherwise:

> The Government’s interpretation seems all the more unbelievable because §666 applies to the gift-givers as well as the state and local officials accepting the gifts. Specifically, §666(a)(2) makes it a crime punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment for someone to “corruptly” offer or give “anything of value” to state and local officials “with intent to influence or reward.” So under the Government’s approach, families, students, constituents, and other members of the public would be forced to guess whether they could even offer (much less actually give) thank-you gift cards, steak dinners, or Fever tickets to their garbage collectors, professors, or school board members, for example.

But the "bribery is legal now" take you seemingly got from here is incorrect under any interpretation of the word "bribery." Using SCOTUS' version of the word, bribes are still punished by 18 USC 666, and gratuities are punished by 18 USC 201 (as well as other laws for both categories).

But don't take my word for it, you can read the ruling directly: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf