Court to hear money laundering case
on Apr 23, 2007 at 10:03 am
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to clarify the scope of the main federal money laundering law. It will spell out whether the ban on use of “proceeds” of a crime to promote or conceal it — that is, “laundering” the proceeds — applies to the total amount of money, or only the profits, if any, that remain after expenses. The Seventh Circuit, in conflict with other Circuit Courts, has ruled that, if there were no profits, the law does not apply. The case is U.S. v. Santos (06-1005, petition), involving a federal prosecution for using money from an illegal lottery in Indiana to pay runners, collectors and winners of the betting.
The Court took no action on two major cases considered at last Friday’s Conference — Medellin v. Texas (06-984, cert. docs) and Doe v. Kamehameha Schools (06-1202, Petition, BIO, Reply). Presumably, they will be considered anew at this Friday’s Conference. The Medellin case tests whether the President has the authority to order states to comply with a decision of the World Court involving the treaty rights of foreign nationals arrested and prosecuted in those states. The Kamehameha case tests whether it is illegal under federal civil rights law for a private school to use race preferences in admitting students, if that is done to try to remedy imbalances in educational performance.
Among other orders issued Monday, the Court sent back to lower courts two cases testing the constitutionality of state “partial-birth abortion” laws, to be reconsidered in the wake of last Wednesday’s decision upholding a similar federal ban. The new cases involved a Virginia law (Herring v. Richmond Medical Center, 05-730, and a Missouri law, Nixon v. Reproductive Health Services, 05-1124). In both cases, the state laws were found unconstitutional because they did not provide a medical exception. In the abortion ruling last week in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, together with 05-1382), the Court said it was not constitutionally necessary to have such an exception, when there was a difference of opinion among doctors about the need for the type of abortion procedure involved.
Because the Carhart decision involved a federal law, Monday’s orders in the Virginia and Missouri cases extend that precedent to the state level, where most legislative activity about abortion is centered.
The Court denied review in a number of significant cases, including a refusal to hear either of two cases that sought to raise anew an employment discrimination issue that had been before the Court earlier this Term in a case that has now been dismissed. The Court declined to hear Sawicki v. Morgan State University (06-306) and turned aside a petition for rehearing in the denied case of Ray v. CSX Transportation (06-405). Both raised the question whether an employer is liable for alleged bias of a subordinate, when the subordinate was not the one who made the actual employment decision. That was the question — the so-called “cat’s paw” liability issue — in BCI Coca-Cola v. EEOC (06-341) that was dismissed earlier this month by agreement of the parties.
Among the issues the Court refused on Monday to hear were these:
** Whether a plea bargain is a contract that is to be enforced under state law like any other contract; the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was. Tilton v. Buckley (05-1623).
** Whether testimony given at a preliminary hearing in a criminal case is barred as evidence at trial if the witness is unavailable to testify, but the testimony had been subjected to cross-examination at the earlier hearing. State courts rejected the challenge raised under the Supreme Court precedent in Crawford v.Washington. Schneider v. Virginia (05-600).
** Whether federal law preempts state laws against fraud in the federal-state Medicaid program for the poor, aged and disabled. The Florida Supreme Court found preemption of a Florida law against Medicaid “kickbacks.” Florida v. Harden (06-770).
** Would the Court reopen the question of when police officers may search the interior of a car or truck after they have made an arrest for a traffic violation. The Eighth Circuit rejected a pre-trial appeal challenging the use of guns found in a concealed interior compartment of a pickup truck stopped for a traffic offense. The appeal sought reconsideration of New York v. Belton (1981). The case was Hrasky v. U.S. (06-827).
** Whether the federal Superfund law is unconstitutional because it can lead to retroactive liability in huge sums for toxic waste dumps. The issue involved a recovery assessment of more than $100 million, upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court. Hercules v. U.S. (06-865), and two related cases (06-853 and 06-1014).
** Whether the Constitution requires a “ministerial exemption” to federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Third Circuit Court, which issued two conflicting rulings by different panels in the same case, ultimately rejected the Title VII complaint of sex bias by a nun on the staff at Gannon University in Erie, Pa., a Catholic college. Petruska v. Gannon University (06-985).
** Whether the Court would restrict claims under the federal False Claims Act to those involving conditions of federal funding, and reject claims based on violations of rules of eligibility for the funds. The Ninth Circuit Court allowed a claim of the second kind to proceed. University of Phoenix v. U.S. ex rel. Hendow, et al. (06-1006).
