Court declines appeal request from Kilpatrick
DETROIT (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has declined a request by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to overturn his corruption conviction and 28-year prison sentence.
The court announced its decision not to review the case Monday.
Kilpatrick's request was made after a federal appeals court said in October it had no interest in taking a second look at the case.
In 2013, Kilpatrick was found guilty of tax evasion and bribery.
His appeal centered on an alleged conflict among his trial attorneys, among other very technical reasons. He quit office in another scandal in 2008 and is federal prison.
Kilpatrick's attorney, Harold Gurewitz, told the Detroit Free Press that he's "disappointed that the court didn't give" them "an opportunity to argue the issues of law" that were raised.
• • • • • • • • • •
Texas illegally curbs abortion clinics, court rules in 5-3 vote
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court issued its strongest defense of abortion rights in a quarter-century Monday, striking down Texas' widely replicated rules that sharply reduced abortion clinics in the nation's second-most-populous state.
By a 5-3 vote, the justices rejected the state's arguments that its 2013 law and follow-up regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
The clinics that challenged the law argued that it was merely a veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get abortions by forcing the closure of more than half the roughly 40 clinics that operated before the law took effect.
Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit women's right to abortions.
Breyer wrote that "the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."
Thirteen states have similar requirements, enacted as part of a wave of abortion restrictions that states have imposed in recent years. Others include limits on when in a pregnancy abortions may be performed and the use of drugs that induce abortions without surgical intervention.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, the owner of several Texas clinics among her eight facilities in five states, predicted that the decision would "put a stop to this trend of copycat legislation."
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the law "was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women's health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly elected representatives."
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer's majority.
Ginsburg wrote a short opinion noting that laws like Texas' "that do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion, cannot survive judicial inspection" under the court's earlier abortion-rights decisions. She pointed specifically to Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, of which Kennedy was one of three authors.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Thomas wrote that the decision "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Thomas was quoting an earlier abortion dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Scalia has not yet been replaced, so only eight justices voted.
Alito, reading a summary of his dissent in court, said the clinics should have lost on technical, procedural grounds. Alito said the court was adopting a rule of, "If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again."
Abortion providers said the rules would have cut the number of abortion clinics in Texas to fewer than 10 if they had been allowed to take full effect.
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the clinics, said, "The Supreme Court sent a loud and clear message that politicians cannot use deceptive means to shut down abortion clinics."
President Barack Obama praised the decision, saying, "We remain strongly committed to the protection of women's health, including protecting a woman's access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called the outcome "a victory for women in Texas and across America."
Abortion opponents had hoped Kennedy, who wrote a 2007 opinion upholding a federal ban on a certain type of abortion, would conclude that states can enact health-related measures to make abortions safer.
Instead, he sided with his four more liberal colleagues.
The court "has stripped from states the authority to extend additional protections to women such as clinic safety standards or admitting privilege requirements for abortionists," said Notre Dame University law professor Carter Snead.
Texas is among 10 states with similar admitting-privileges requirements, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. The requirement is in effect in most of Texas, Missouri, North Dakota and Tennessee. It is on hold in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.
The hospital-like outpatient surgery standards are in place in Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and are blocked in Tennessee and Texas, according to the center.
Texas passed a broad bill imposing several abortion restrictions in 2013. Clinics won several favorable rulings in a federal district court in Texas. But each time, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state
Breyer's opinion was a rebuke of the appeals court and a vindication for U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who had held a trial on the challenged provisions and struck them down.
Separate lawsuits are pending over admitting-privileges laws in Louisiana and Mississippi, the other states covered by the 5th circuit. The laws are on hold in both states, and a panel of federal appellate judges has concluded the Mississippi law probably is unconstitutional because it would force the only abortion clinic in the state to close.
• • • • • • • • • •
Appeal over wages for home care workers rejected
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Obama administration regulations that extend minimum wage and overtime pay rights to nearly 2 million home health care workers.
The justices on Monday turned away an appeal from several home care industry groups that said the Labor Department overstepped its authority when it approved the new rules in 2013.
The rules apply to workers hired through third-party staffing agencies that provide home care to the elderly and people with injuries, illnesses or disabilities.
A federal judge had scrapped the regulations last year, but a federal appeals court reversed that ruling.
Workers hired through third-party staffing agencies had previously been exempt from minimum wage and overtime pay rules since 1974.
• • • • • • • • • •
Reach of gun ban for domestic violence convictions upheld
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bars people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from owning guns.
The justices rejected arguments that the law covers only intentional or knowing acts of abuse and not those committed recklessly - where a person is aware of the risk that an act will cause injury, but not certain it will. As examples, the court mentioned throwing a plate in the heat of an argument, or slamming a door.
The case involved two Maine men who said their guilty pleas for hitting their partners should not disqualify them from gun ownership.
Writing for herself and five other justices, Justice Elena Kagan said that Congress enacted the gun law some 20 years ago to close a loophole and "prohibit domestic abusers convicted under run-of-the-mill misdemeanor assault and battery laws from possessing guns." She said if the law were read to exclude misdemeanors in which a person acted recklessly, it would "substantially undermine the provision's design."
Gun-rights groups had argued that Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III should not lose their constitutional right to bear arms, while advocates for victims of domestic abuse pushed to preserve the restriction.
The case isn't among the more important ones of the term. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said while the Obama administration is pleased with the ruling, he suggested it wouldn't have a significant impact on the debate in Congress about gun control, a debate renewed by a mass shooting earlier this month that left 49 people dead at a gay nightclub in Florida.
The case is notable, however, in part because when it was argued on Feb. 29 Justice Clarence Thomas asked a series of questions from the bench, the first time in 10 years that he'd asked a question. His questions came less than a month after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, his close friend, conservative ally and also a strong supporter of gun rights.
Thomas expressed concern at the argument that a misdemeanor conviction could deprive someone of their constitutional gun rights, pressing a government attorney for any other examples when that could happen. He returned to that issue in a dissenting opinion Monday.
"Under the majority's reading, a single conviction under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family member - such as by texting while driving - can now trigger a lifetime ban on gun ownership," he wrote, adding: "We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Thomas' dissent in part, agreeing that if Congress wanted to cover all reckless conduct it could have written the law differently.
The two men who were the subjects of Monday's decision were convicted of breaking federal law by possessing firearms following misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence. Both men argued that they should not be barred from gun ownership because their convictions could have been based on reckless action, not action that was knowing or intentional.
Voisine pleaded guilty to assault in 2004 after slapping his girlfriend in the face while he was intoxicated. Several years later, an anonymous caller reported that he had shot a bald eagle with a rifle. He was then convicted under the gun law and sentenced to a year in prison.
Armstrong pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife in 2008. A few years later, police searching his home as part of a narcotics investigation discovered firearms and ammunition. He was sentenced to three years of probation.
--------
Associated Press reporters Sam Hananel and Josh Lederman contributed to this report.
• • • • • • • • • •
Court overturns former governor's conviction
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday threw out the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in a ruling that could make it tougher to prosecute elected officials accused of corruption.
Chief Justice John Roberts said McDonnell's conduct in accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement may have been "distasteful" or even "tawdry," but didn't necessarily violate federal bribery laws.
McDonnell, once a rising star in the Republican Party, was found guilty in 2014 and sentenced to two years in prison, but was allowed to remain free while the justices weighed his appeal. The case now returns to lower courts to decide whether prosecutors have enough evidence to try McDonnell again.
At issue was a law that bars public officials from taking gifts in exchange for "official action." McDonnell said he never took any official action to benefit Star Scientific Inc. CEO Jonnie Williams or pressured other state officials to do so. McDonnell claims he did nothing except set up meetings and make some calls for constituent who asked for help.
Prosecutors insisted that McDonnell accepted personal benefits with the understanding that he would use the power of the governor's office to help Williams.
But Roberts agreed with McDonnell that the instructions to his trial jury about what constitutes "official acts" was so broad that it could include virtually any action a public official might take while in office. That could leave politicians across the country subject to the whims of prosecutors, he said.
"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," Roberts wrote.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," he wrote. "But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns," a reference to some of the expensive gifts McDonnell received. "It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."
In a statement, McDonnell thanked the justices and said he has not and would not "betray the sacred trust" of the Virginia people. He said he hoped the matter will soon be over so that he and his family can begin to rebuild their lives.
McDonnell's attorney Noel Francisco called the decision a "home run" and said it was unlikely a new trial would go forward.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
McDonnell's wife, Maureen, also was convicted of corruption and was sentenced to a year in prison. Her appeal has been on hold while the Supreme Court considered her husband's case. Her attorney, William Burck, said Monday's ruling "requires that her conviction immediately be tossed out as well."
In his opinion, Roberts noted that McDonnell had won the support of several influential former White House attorneys - both Democrats and Republicans - as well as dozens of state attorneys general. Those officials told the court that upholding McDonnell's conviction would cripple the ability of elected officials to do their jobs.
The ruling could affect the cases of governors, senators and other elected officials who either are under indictment or have been convicted. In New York, for example, a federal judge said last month that former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, convicted of illegally pocketing $5 million, could wait until after the Supreme Court ruling to report to prison.
The U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York issued a statement Monday saying Silver's case satisfies the high court's standards.
Tara Malloy, deputy executive director of the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling "makes it even more difficult to protect our democracy from attempts by officeholders to peddle political access and influence to the highest bidder."
There is no dispute that McDonnell received multiple payments and gifts from Williams, which was not illegal at the time under Virginia ethics laws.
The gifts included nearly $20,000 in designer clothing and accessories for McDonnell's wife, a $6,500 engraved Rolex watch, $15,000 in catering for their daughter's wedding, and free family vacations and golf trips for their boys. Williams also provided three loans totaling $120,000.
As the gifts came in, McDonnell helped set up meetings with state health officials, appeared at promotional events and even hosted a launch luncheon for the dietary supplement at the governor's mansion. Williams was seeking state money and the credibility of Virginia's universities to perform clinical research that would support his company's drug.
A federal appeals court unanimously had upheld the former governor's convictions last year.
McDonnell insists that he never put any pressure on state officials and that Williams ultimately never got the official action he wanted - state funding for medical studies on the dietary pills. The former governor argued the Justice Department was unfairly criminalizing "everyday acts" that are a typical part of the job.
Roberts agreed that the government's position "could cast a pall of potential prosecution" over public officials interacting with the people they serve.
"The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns," Roberts said.
Some experts said the ruling may not be a major obstacle to future corruption prosecutions.
Charles James, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said the McDonnell case was a "rather aggressive and expansive view" of bribery laws and predicted more routine cases "will still be fodder for federal prosecutors."
--------
Associated Press Writers Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer in Richmond, Virginia, contributed to this report.
• • • • • • • • • •
Justices turn down appeal over medical marijuana in Montana
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal challenging a Montana law that limits medical marijuana providers to selling the drug to a maximum of three patients each.
The justices on Monday let stand a Montana Supreme Court ruling that upheld key provisions of a state law that rolled back much of the 2004 voter-approved initiative legalizing medicinal marijuana.
The Montana Cannabis Industry Association said the rollbacks would force the closure of dispensaries and leave patients without a legal way to obtain the drug.
The new restrictions are set to take effect Aug. 31.
Published: Wed, Jun 29, 2016
