Following the summary denial of their initial appeals in a landmark public corruption case, former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and former party chair Matt Borges are filing for a rare rehearing en banc at the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In May, a three‑judge Sixth Circuit panel unanimously upheld the 2023 convictions of Householder and Borges on racketeering charges tied to FirstEnergy’s $60 million bribery scheme connected to House Bill 6, labeling it the largest corruption scandal in Ohio history. Householder received a 20‑year prison sentence; Borges was sentenced to five years.
Both are pursuing an en banc appeal in the full Sixth Circuit. Such rehearings are rarely granted—legal experts place their chances in the single digits, but this move signals Householder’s and Borges’s belief that significant legal errors were made.
Householder’s team says the panel wrongly upheld the convictions on several grounds. His defense argues the $60 million funnelled through Generation Now was lawful political spending, not bribery, framing the FBI’s theory as punishing political expression.
Scott Pullins, Householder’s longtime adviser, characterized the higher court’s ruling as “a sad and disappointing day, and even a sadder day for constitutional free speech and the rule of law,” alleging that Householder was targeted unfairly. At the same time, other politicians have engaged in similar dark‑money fundraising.
Pullins added in a Substack statement: “Mr. Householder raised undisclosed, unlimited donations for a 501(c)(4), but the federal government singled only Mr. Householder out for prosecution.”
Householder has also flagged several alleged trial errors, including flawed jury instructions, prejudicial evidentiary rulings, violations of his right to counsel, judicial bias, and an unreasonably harsh sentence, all of which were rejected by the appeals panel.
Borges’s appeal centers on technical legal questions about “honest‑services” fraud and whether he knew the law applied to his conduct. Earlier, Judge Amul Thapar agreed that: “Borges has a good argument [that] his conduct fell within a murky middle: perhaps objectionable, but not clearly illegal.”
Dennis Belli, Borges’s attorney, echoed that theme, denouncing the prosecution’s reliance on what he called a “Tinkerbell strategy”, appealing to emotion absent a strong legal basis: “’Tinkerbell strategy’ aptly describes the prosecution’s use of an alleged violation of a misdemeanor statute to obtain a felony racketeering conviction. I will be studying the 64‑page ruling closely and will advise my client regarding his options going forward.”
There are three goals they seek to accomplish. First, they want to secure a rehearing en banc. They’re asking the full Sixth Circuit to reexamine key issues, including jury instructions and honest‑services fraud guidelines, in hopes of overturning or vacating the convictions. Second, they hope to lay the groundwork for Supreme Court review. If unsuccessful en banc, both defendants may seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, though such petitions are rarely granted. Thirdly, they want to strengthen their legal and public positioning.
Even if convictions stand, a well‑argued appeal could bolster efforts for clemency or draw sympathetic media attention. Householder’s camp has flagged possible political bias behind DOJ decisions, and the case already resonates with populists, highlighting alleged federal overreach.
Here are three key points of background and context to keep in mind while considering this story:
• In March 2023, a jury found Householder, Borges, and three others guilty of orchestrating a coordinated campaign to pass HB 6, which provided FirstEnergy a $1 billion nuclear plant bailout and pushed back a ballot referendum on the measure.
• The criminal scheme involved generating heavy dark‑money expenditures through Generation Now, plus efforts to influence public officials, manipulate petitions, and pressure the Attorney General’s office.
• The scheme effectively neutralized a repeal campaign by delaying referendum petitions and funding opposition to signature‑gathering efforts.
By requesting an en banc rehearing, Householder and Borges hope to position themselves for a stark legal pivot that could either upend convictions or set the stage for the nation’s highest court. However, with rare success rates in such appeals, their motion may be more about reshaping the public narrative than delivering a transformative judicial win.
As procedural deadlines near, the full Sixth Circuit will decide whether to revisit the key legal issues raised. Regardless of the outcome, this procedural gambit underscores the enduring high stakes of the HB 6 case in Ohio’s political and legal landscape.
