federalism

Oral argument: Dec. 8, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Aug. 4, 2008)

MAIL-FRAUD STATUTE, HONEST SERVICES, FEDERALISM, DISCLOSURE DUTY

Petitioner, Bruce Weyhrauch ("Weyhrauch"), a member of the Alaska House of Representatives, was charged with honest services mail fraud for intending to devise a scheme to deprive the State of Alaska of its intangible right to his honest services in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1346. Respondent, the United States of America ("United States"), asserts that Weyhrauch should have disclosed his attempts to procure future employment from VECO, an oil company, before voting for legislation that would benefit the company. Weyhrauch claims that he cannot be convicted of honest services fraud because Alaska only requires the disclosure of actual conflicts of interest, not possible ones. The United States believes a violation of § 1346 does not require a concurrent violation of state law in order to convict Weyhrauch of honest services fraud. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether § 1346 mandates the creation of a federal common law extending the federal government’s authority over criminal matters usually handled by the states. The Court’s decision will also settle a circuit split and decide what type of conduct constitutes honest services fraud.

Oral argument: Dec. 2, 2009

Appealed from: Florida Supreme Court (Sept. 29, 2008)

TAKINGS CLAUSE, JUDICIAL TAKINGS, ACCRETION, COASTAL PROPERTY, FEDERALISM

In order to combat beach erosion, the Florida Legislature passed the Beach and Shore Preservation Act. The act authorized local municipalities to restore the coastline by adding sand, creating a temporary buffer against erosion. Petitioner Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. (“SBR”) claims that Respondents Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al.  (“Florida”) misused the statute in order to unconstitutionally appropriate private beaches for public use without just compensation. SBR alleges that the Florida Supreme Court violated the due process and takings clauses by suddenly and unpredictably changing state substantive law to deprive SBR of its private property without compensation. SBR asks the court, for the first time, to explicitly articulate a doctrine of “judicial takings” in order to address the growing problem of state judiciaries redefining property rights out of existence so that states can avoid compensating property owners. Florida argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should avoid interfering in state court interpretation of state law out of respect for federalism. Florida contends that, even if there were a situation where a doctrine of judicial takings should be imposed, this is not one of them, because the Florida Supreme Court properly followed common law precedent.

Oral argument: Apr. 20, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Feb. 22, 2008)

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Oral argument: October 5, 2005

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Oral argument: Dec 5, 2005

Oral argument: Dec. 9, 2008

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (June 19, 2007)

FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW, HABEAS PETITION, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, FEDERALISM

Gary Cone was convicted and sentenced to death in the Criminal Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, for the murder of two people. Subsequent to Cone’s direct appeal, the state made available documents that both supported Cone’s defense that he was a drug addict at the time of the killings and impeached the testimonies of several witnesses. Respondent Bell argues for the state that Cone is procedurally barred from raising his grounds for relief in a federal habeas corpus review, as state courts already rejected it and Cone failed to properly argue it in the state courts. Petitioner Cone, however, argues that there should not be a procedural bar in this case because he did not receive the new information until his second request for post-conviction review, so the courts erroneously found that his claim had been previously decided. He also argues that it is the federal court’s duty in federal habeas review to examine grounds for relief based on federal law.  The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could implicate the methods by which individuals convicted in state court can litigate their claims, both in state courts and upon federal habeas corpus review. Additionally, the Court’s decision could clarify the roles of state and federal courts in an area of law with implications for the federalist structure.

Oral argument: Nov. 3, 2008

Appealed from: Supreme Court of Vermont (Jan. 18, 2008)

Oral argument: January 14, 2008

Appealed from: Supreme Court of Virginia (November 3, 2006)

Oral argument: October 31, 2007

Appealed from: Supreme Court of Minnesota (December 12, 2006)