SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Challenge to Ohio ban on campaign lies gets ­OK'd By Sam Hananel Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that an anti-abortion group can challenge an Ohio law that bars people from making false statements about political candidates during a campaign. The decision raises serious doubts about whether the law - and similar measures in more than a dozen other states - can survive amid complaints that they violate free speech rights. The high court said the Susan B. Anthony List does not have to wait until it is prosecuted under the law to claim its First Amendment rights have been infringed. The court did not directly rule on the constitutionality of the law, but the decision sends the case back to a lower court to consider the question. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the existence of the law already has a chilling effect on political speech because people and interest groups have reason to believe their statements may be censured. Both liberal and conservative groups have criticized the law, saying it stifles the wide-open debate crucial during elections, including negative speech that may sometimes twist the facts. Even Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine declined to defend the law in court, citing constitutional concerns. He sent his deputies to argue for the state instead. The case began during the 2010 election when the Susan B. Anthony List, planned to put up billboards ads attacking then-Rep. Steve Driehaus. The ads accused Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he supported President Barack Obama's new health care law. Driehaus, a Democrat who opposes abortion, claimed the ads misrepresented the true facts and therefore violated the false speech law. After Driehaus filed a formal complaint, the billboard owner feared legal action and declined to post the ads. The Ohio Elections Commission found probable cause that the ads violated the law, but Driehaus later dropped the case after losing his re-election bid. When the Susan B. Anthony List challenged the state law as unconstitutional, a federal judge said the group didn't have the right to sue because the case was withdrawn and it hadn't suffered actual harm. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed. In reversing the lower courts, Thomas said the Susan B. Anthony List intends to make the same statements in future elections. That means the speech will remain prohibited under the Ohio false statement law. "There is every reason to think that similar speech in the future will result in similar proceedings, notwithstanding SBA's belief in the truth of its allegations," Thomas said. Thomas said the threat of commission proceedings is like arrest or prosecution in that it "may give rise to harm sufficient to justify pre-enforcement review." Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group would move quickly to try to have the law tossed out. "The truth or falsity of political speech should be judged by voters, not government bureaucrats," she said. The group already plans to put up similar billboard ads in opposition to Democratic U.S. senators in Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina; those states have similar laws banning false campaign speech. DeWine spokesman Dan Tierney described the high court ruling as "unanimous and significant." "As the matter now proceeds in the lower courts, the Ohio Attorney General's Office has a duty and will continue to defend the constitutionality of the statute." Tierney said. "Attorney General DeWine will also continue to make the courts aware of his significant First Amendment concerns on this issue." Other states with similar laws include Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. -------- Associated Press writer Hope Yen contributed to this report. Divided court rules on â??straw purchaser' law By Sam Hananel Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal government can strictly enforce laws that ban a "straw" purchaser from buying a gun for someone else. The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to his uncle in Pennsylvania - even though the uncle is not prohibited from owning firearms. The decision split the court along familiar ideological lines, though it has no direct bearing on the Second Amendment right to own guns. It settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork. "Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw," Kagan said. Her opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using his expired police identification to get a discount. Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, Abramski answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you." Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun. A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. "This is a very big and very positive decision that will save lives by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration. Scalia scoffed at the majority's reading of the law, noting that if Abramski intended to buy the gun as a gift or to use as a raffle prize, the government would consider him the true buyer. "If I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store â??sells' the milk and eggs to me," Scalia said. Kagan responded with her own analogy: "If I send my brother to the Apple Store with money and instructions to purchase an iPhone, and then take immediate and sole possession of that device, am I the â??person' (or â??transferee') who has bought the phone or is he? Nothing in ordinary English usage compels an answer either way." Argentina dealt double blow by justices over debt By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday handed Argentina a double defeat in its long-running fight with holders of its defaulted bonds, despite the South American country's pleas that its economy could be threatened if it has to pay off the old debt. The justices rejected without comment Argentina's appeal of judgments ordering it to pay more than $1.3 billion to hedge funds that hold some of the country's bonds. Then, in a 7-1 ruling, the high court said the bond holders could use American courts to force Argentina to reveal where it owns property around the world. The decision should make it easier for them to collect on court judgments. The legal fight stems from debt that has been unpaid since the country's 2001 economic crisis. Investors holding more than 92 percent of Argentina's defaulted debt agreed in 2005 and 2010 to write off two-thirds of their pre-crisis value, providing debt relief that enabled the economy to rebound. But some of the holdouts sued, including hedge funds led by billionaire Paul Singer's NML Capital Ltd. The investors won an unprecedented judgment that would block Argentina's payments to many other bondholders unless it pays cash first to the plaintiffs. Argentina asked the Supreme Court to intervene because it said that making the country pay cash in full to investors who didn't accept bond swaps in exchange for defaulted debt could destabilize the global economy by making other voluntary debt restructurings much harder. Lawyers for Argentina said that full payment would cut the country's reserves roughly in half. They also said that lower courts which ruled against Argentina were ignoring federal law that generally protects other nations in American courts and could make U.S. assets more vulnerable to lawsuits filed abroad. But the court declined to get involved in the case Monday. The government of President Cristina Fernandez did not immediately comment on the ruling. Argentina's main stock market index was down more than 5 percent in morning trading. Ramiro Castineira, an economist with the Econometrica consulting firm, told The Associated Press in Buenos Aires that the ruling doesn't necessarily mean an automatic default. Castineira said, "what remains to be negotiated is the form of payment. The country has sufficient reserves and if it shows a willingness to pay it will get financing, I have no doubts. " The next payment of $907 million to holders of the restructured debt is scheduled for June 30, said Daniel Kerner, a Latin America expert at the Eurasia Group consulting firm. Fernandez "is focused on reaching the end of her mandate without an economic crisis, and she has good political reason to avoid default. Moreover, a prolonged default would put the strategy of improving ties with foreign investors...at risk. As a result, we expect the government to seek a negotiated solution with holdouts, though it will explore options that allow it to create the appearance that it is not conceding," Kerner said. The leader of an anti-poverty group criticized the court's action. "I am blown away by the decision. For heavily indebted countries trying to support extremely poor people, this is a devastating blow. These hedge funds are equipped with an instrument that forces struggling economies into submission," said Eric LeCompte, executive director of Jubilee USA Network. In the separate ruling, the justices rejected the country's efforts to try to prevent NML and the other investors from learning about Argentina's property around the world. The question was a relatively narrow aspect of the debt issue, whether a sovereign nation can be forced to reveal assets around the world so plaintiffs can collect on U.S. court judgments. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, in which he said federal law offers no shield to Argentina. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling would lead to a "sweeping examination of Argentina's worldwide assets." Ginsburg said she would have narrowed lower court orders in favor of the bondholders to exclude diplomatic, military and national security property owned by Argentina. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took no part in either case. -------- Associated Press writer Almudena Calatrava contributed to this report from Buenos Aires. Scottie Pippen defamationcase rejected WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has declined to revive a defamation lawsuit that former Chicago Bulls star Scottie Pippen filed against several media companies for falsely reporting he had filed for bankruptcy. The justices on Monday did not comment in letting stand lower court decisions dismissing the $10 million lawsuit against NBCUniversal Media LLC, CBS Interactive, Inc. and other media outlets. Lower courts found that as a public figure, Pippen could not show the reports were published with actual malice. That standard requires Pippen to show the information was published knowing it was false or issued with reckless disregard for the truth. Pippen claimed the media companies acted with malice because they refused to correct or remove the erroneous reports from several websites after being alerted to the error. Justices turn down appealover graduations in church WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has left in place a court decision that said public high school graduations in a church adorned with religious symbols violated the separation of church and state. The justices' action Monday comes more than a month after the court upheld Christian prayer at the start of town council meetings. The justices did not explain their denial of the appeal from the Elmbrook School District in southeastern Wisconsin, however. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case. In 2012, the federal appeals court in Chicago found that a giant cross on the wall of Elmbrook Church and other religious symbols that were visible during graduation ceremonies conveyed a message that government was endorsing a particular religion. The district no longer holds graduations there. Court denies insider trader's fraud appeal WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a onetime billionaire hedge fund founder who was convicted on insider trading charges. The justices did not comment Monday in letting stand the 2011 conviction of Raj Rajaratnam, who is serving an 11-year prison sentence for committing securities fraud. Rajaratnam wanted the high court to review what role insider information played in the securities trades for which he was convicted. He also asked the justices to look at whether the government properly obtained a wiretap on his cellphone that was used to capture 2,200 private conversations. The federal appeals court in New York previously upheld the conviction of Rajaratnam, who founded the Galleon group of hedge funds. His brother, Rengam Rajaratnam, is facing federal fraud charges. Published: Wed, Jun 18, 2014