Supreme Court Notebook

 Justices reject Wisconsin appeal over abortion law 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down Wisconsin’s bid to begin enforcing a state law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, while a legal fight over the law plays out in lower federal courts.

A federal judge is weighing a challenge to the law from Parent Parenthood and others which claim that it would amount to restricting access to abortions in Wisconsin because of the difficulties doctors would face in getting the hospital privileges.
U.S. District Judge William Conley is not expected to rule on the lawsuit before July, but he placed the law on hold last summer. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld Conley’s action.
The justices did not comment Monday in declining to get involved in the case.

 

Supreme Court to hear Amtrak dispute 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether Amtrak can partner with a government agency to create rules that other private railroads must follow.
 
The justices agreed to hear the Obama administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that said Congress unconstitutionally gave regulatory power to the passenger railroad company.

Congress passed a law in 2008 that directed Amtrak to work with the Federal Railroad Administration to develop standards for improving passenger rail service. The new standards were meant to help Amtrak improve its on-time performance and quality of service.

But the American Association of Railroads sued, arguing that a private company was not allowed to develop regulations. The association, which represents freight railroads, was not pleased with the proposed standards that Amtrak and the government had worked out. They included new standards on how Amtrak would keep its priority over freight trains in using common railroad tracks.

A federal court rejected the freight railroads’ arguments, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit disagreed. It ruled that even though Amtrak is subject to government oversight, it remains a for-profit company that cannot be given regulatory authority.

The Transportation Department says it has been nearly 80 years since a court has struck down a law on the grounds that it impermissibly gave regulatory power to a private party. The Obama administration argues that Amtrak’s role in developing regulations was limited and that the government retained enough control over the ultimate standards.

The freight railroads say that the Amtrak “can wield its lawmaking authority to its commercial advantage.” They argue that allowing Amtrak to help craft the rules would let the passenger railroad pressure freight railroads to rewrite private contracts that govern how common tracks are shared.

The court will hear the case, Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 13-1080, when its new term begins in the fall.
 

Justices rebuff New Jersey’s effort on sports betting 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a ban on sports gambling in New Jersey, rebuffing an attempt to bring betting on professional and college sporting events to Atlantic City casinos and the state’s racetracks.
 
The justices did not comment in letting stand lower court rulings that struck down New Jersey’s sports betting law because it conflicts with a federal law that that allows state-sanctioned sports gambling only in Nevada and three other states.

The state’s appeal was led by Gov. Chris Christie and it argued that New Jersey was trying to limit illegal sports wagering and capture some of that money for the state treasury. New Jersey says an estimated $500 billion is bet illegally on sporting events each year.

The New Jersey lawmaker who wrote the betting legislation said he plans to introduce a bill that would repeal all laws prohibiting sports betting. Sen. Raymond Lesniak said he hoped the U.S. Justice Department wouldn’t challenge it, which he said would be consistent with its stance in other areas.

“Aren’t they selling marijuana in Colorado and Washington?” he asked. “Isn’t that against federal law?”

Voters in New Jersey overwhelmingly endorsed legal sports betting in a nonbinding referendum in 2011. State lawmakers soon enacted a law to allow for betting at tracks and in casinos. Bets wouldn’t have been taken on games involving New Jersey colleges or college games played in the state.

But those actions ran up against the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, enacted by Congress to restrict betting on sports to a few states. Nevada has allowed betting on sports for more than 60 years, and Delaware, Montana and Oregon have at times permitted more limited betting. New Jersey missed a deadline in the law that would have allowed sports betting in Atlantic City.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association, the major professional leagues in baseball, basketball, football and hockey sued to block the New Jersey law from taking effect, saying betting would harm the integrity of their games. The Obama administration also joined in the legal fight, opposing New Jersey.

A trial judge ruled against the state and his ruling was upheld by a divided panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

The appeals court said it was not judging the wisdom or desirability of allowing sports wagering.

“New Jersey’s sports wagering law conflicts with PASPA and, under our Constitution, must yield,” the court said.
The dissenting judge said Congress exceeded its authority when it passed the federal sports betting law.
 

Justices uphold use  of anti-bank fraud law 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the broad application of a federal anti-bank fraud law.
 
The justices sustained the bank fraud conviction of Kevin Loughrin, who used stolen checks as part of a scheme to take merchandise and cash from a Target store in Utah. Using checks from a bank brought Loughrin under the bank fraud statute. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

Justice Elena Kagan said for the court that the law does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a bank. Lower courts had come to different conclusions on that topic.

The Obama administration had argued that the law should be read broadly because banks lose about $1 billion a year to fraud.

Loughrin said that a broad application of the federal law would sweep under it many crimes that are usually prosecuted by state authorities. He also said Congress would have written the law differently if it had wanted his crime to fall under it.

Kagan said, “Neither argument is without force, but in the end, neither carries the day.”

The case is Loughrin v. U.S., 13-316.