Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

January 30, 2023 | SCOTUS Fails to Identify Leaker of Dobbs Opinion

Supreme Court Considers Scope of Federal Bribery Law

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases. One of the most closely watched is Percoco v. United States, which involves the scope of a key federal bribery law. The question before the justices is whether private citizens can owe a fiduciary duty to the public and therefore be guilty of honest-services fraud.

In convicting Joseph Percoco, who served as campaign manager forNew York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s reelection campaign, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that if a private person exercises enough de facto influence over government decision-making or that state officials sufficiently rely on him, the person can be convicted of bribery even if he had no official title, no official power, and no official duties.

Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court:

Ciminelli v. United States: The government contracting case involves the scope of the federal wire fraud statute, particularly a theory adopted by the Second Circuit known as the “right-to-control theory” of wire fraud, which allows for conviction on “a showing that the defendant, through the withholding or inaccurate reporting of information that could impact on economic decisions, deprived some person or entity of potentially valuable economic information.”The justices have agreed to specifically consider the following question: “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud — which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud — states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute.”

United States v. Texas: The immigration suit brought by the States of Texas and Louisiana challenges a Biden Administration policy prioritizing the apprehension and deportation of three groups of noncitizens: suspected terrorists, individuals who have committed crimes, and those recently detained at the border. The justices have agreed to clarify the states’ ability to challenge federal immigration policy, among other issues. The Court has specifically agreed to resolve three questions: (1) Whether state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; (2) whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) prevents the entry of an order to “hold unlawful and set aside” the guidelines under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

Wilkins v. United States: The case involves two Montana landowners who filed a quiet title action seeking to resolve a dispute over the scope of an easement held by the United States that runs across their land and the federal government’s duties under the easement. The District Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is jurisdictional and because the landowners failed to prove that their claims arose within twelve years of the lawsuit being filed, it dismissed the case. In conflict with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is jurisdictional. The question before the Court is: “Whether the Quiet Title Act’s Statute of Limitations is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim–processing rule?”

The Court is expected to issue decisions in all of the cases prior to the end of the term in June 2023. Please check back for updates.

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Kicks Off February Session With Four Cases
by DONALD SCARINCI on January 26, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court returned to the bench this week to begin their February session. The justice...

Read More
Supreme Court Adds Two Sixth Amendment Cases to Docket
by DONALD SCARINCI on January 24, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider two cases involving the Sixth Amendment to the C...

Read More
SCOTUS Leaves Title 42 in Place Temporarily
by DONALD SCARINCI on January 19, 2023

In Arizona et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to keep the federal g...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • NJ Supreme Court Rules Campus Police Officer Eligible for Arbitration
  • Lorem ipsum
  • Ketanji Brown Jackson to Join SCOTUS as First Black Female Justice
  • SCOTUS Rules Kentucky AG Can Defend Abortion Law

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards

con law awards

Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising