Court sides with ex-Cuomo aide, others convicted of corruption related to 'Buffalo Billion'
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for a onetime top aide to ex-Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and for others who were convicted of corruption related to an economic development project known as the "Buffalo Billion."
In two cases before the court, both liberal and conservative justices were unanimous in saying there were problems with the convictions. The cases are the latest in a line stretching back years that criticize federal prosecutors for overreaching in public corruption cases against state and local officials, as well as people doing business with government.
In 2020, the high court threw out the convictions of political allies of former Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., over the "Bridgegate" scandal that involved four days of traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge. In 2016, the Supreme Court threw out the bribery conviction of former Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va.
The current cases grew out of the "Buffalo Billion" development project, which was intended to revitalize parts of Buffalo and other areas in upstate New York. But the project was a multiyear black cloud over the Cuomo administration and was frequently cited by critics as proof that Cuomo failed to address chronic corruption in state government, even within his own administration. Cuomo resigned in 2021 amid sexual harassment allegations.
In one case, the justices ruled for Joseph Percoco, a former aide so close to Cuomo that he was considered like a brother. Percoco was convicted of accepting money from companies seeking to influence the Cuomo administration as it worked on the "Buffalo Billion" project.
Percoco was ultimately sentenced to six years in prison, a conviction upheld on appeal. The case also involved Syracuse real estate executive Steven Aiello who paid Percoco for his assistance.
But the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, said the jury in Percoco's case was given improper instructions when it found him guilty of a wire fraud conspiracy count. Percoco was convicted "based on instructions that required the jury to determine whether he had a 'special relationship' with the government and had 'dominated and controlled' government business ... We conclude that this is not the proper test," Alito wrote.
In a statement, Percoco's lawyer, Yaakov Roth, said his client's prosecution was "an abuse of the federal fraud statutes." He added: "We are gratified that the court agreed with our position that he was not a public official during the relevant time period, and so he did not violate federal law by acting on behalf of private clients."
Roth said a lower court will have to determine whether his client's two remaining convictions can survive after the Supreme Court's ruling. But Percoco has finished serving his sentence, so the question is just whether the remaining convictions will stay on his record.
In the second case, which also involved Aiello, the court ruled for him and for developers Louis Ciminelli and Joseph Gerardi and Alain Kaloyeros, formerly one of Cuomo's top economic development advisers. The court in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas said that the basis for their fraud convictions was faulty.
The group's prison terms had been put on hold while their case was appealed and the decision makes it more likely that this is the end of the case.
Justices rule against Puerto Rican journalists seeking records from financial oversight board
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against an organization of Puerto Rican journalists in its quest for documents from the financial oversight board created to deal with the island territory's bankruptcy.
The justices by an 8-1 vote reversed an appeals court ruling in favor of the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, which has reported extensively on Puerto Rico's fiscal crisis and debt restructuring.
In 2016, Congress passed a law that created the control board that continues to oversee Puerto Rico's finances. The reporters' group is seeking an array of documents, including communications between the board's members and U.S. and Puerto Rican officials.
The board contends it is a part of the government of Puerto Rico and enjoys the same shield from federal lawsuits as the government.
But the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Puerto Rico, ruled that the 2016 law, known as PROMESA, eliminated the immunity from lawsuits, and allowed the claims of the reporters' group to proceed.
Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said Congress has to speak clearly on this subject and nothing in PROMESA makes clear "that Congress deprived the board of sovereign immunity."
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
Lourdes Rosado, president of the civil rights advocacy group LatinoJustice PRLDEF, said in a statement that the court's decision "allows this anti-democratic body to continue to withhold vital information on their decisions and actions affecting Puerto Rico's economy and the lives of millions of people."
Unanimous Court gives transgender woman from Guatemala new chance to fight deportation
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of a transgender Guatemalan woman who is fighting deportation on the grounds that she would face persecution if returned to her native country.
The court's unanimous decision in favor of Estrella Santos-Zacaria gives her another chance to argue that immigration officials were wrong to reject her bid to remain in the United States.
Lawyers for Santos-Zacaria, now in her mid-30s, said she first fled to the United States after being raped as a young teenager and threatened with death because of her gender identity in a country that has targeted the LGBTQ community.
But a U.S. immigration judge found that she did not make a strong enough case that she would face persecution if sent back to Guatemala.
The issue at the Supreme Court was more technical, whether federal immigration law was flexible enough to allow her another day in court. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against her on that point, but other appellate courts had ruled in favor of immigrants on the same issue.
The Supreme Court ruled in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that the 5th Circuit was wrong.
After leaving Guatemala as a teenager, Santos-Zacaria had once before made it to the United States, but her stay was brief and she was deported in 2008, Jackson wrote.
Ten years later, she again entered the U.S. and was quickly taken into custody by immigration authorities.
Santos-Zacaria had testified that she was raped by a neighbor in the small town in which she was born and that townspeople said they would kill her because of her gender identity and her attraction to men.
She spent most of her time between 2008 and 2018 in Mexico, but decided to try to return to the U.S. after a Mexican gang also raped and assaulted her.
The State Department has found that Guatemala has done little to protect LGBTQ people and that transgender women are subject to frequent threats of violence.
Justices back Calif. law requiring more space for pigs; producers predict pricier pork chops, bacon
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday backed a California animal cruelty law that requires more space for breeding pigs, a ruling the pork industry says will lead to higher costs nationwide for pork chops and bacon.
"While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion for the court.
Industry groups have said the law would mean expensive, industry-wide changes even though a majority of the farms where pigs are raised are not in the nation's most populous state but rather in the Midwest and North Carolina.
But a majority of the high court agreed that lower courts had correctly dismissed pork producers' challenge to the law. Both liberal and conservative justices were a part of the majority, though they were not united in their reasoning.
Gorsuch said the pork producers challenging the law were asking the justices to "fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders." The justices declined.
Four justices would have sent the case back to continue in lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined in that view by fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh and liberal Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson.
During arguments in the case in October, liberal and conservative justices underscored the potential reach of the case. Some worried whether greenlighting the animal cruelty law would give state legislators a license to pass laws targeting practices they disapprove of, such as a law that says a product cannot be sold in the state if workers who made it are not vaccinated or are not in the country legally. They also worried about the reverse: How many state laws would be called into question if California's law were not permitted?
The case before the court involved California's Proposition 12, which voters passed in 2018. It said that pork sold in the state needs to come from pigs whose mothers were raised with at least 24 square feet of space, with the ability to lie down and turn around. That rules out confined "gestation crates," metal enclosures that are common in the pork industry.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa-based National Pork Producers Council sued. They said that while Californians consume 13% of the pork eaten in the United States, nearly 100% of it comes from hogs raised outside the state including in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana in addition to North Carolina. The vast majority of sows, meanwhile, are not raised under conditions that would meet Proposition 12's standards.
Scott Hays, the president of the National Pork Producers Council said in a statement following the ruling that the group was "very disappointed" with the court's opinion. "Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation," he wrote.
The Biden administration had urged the justices to side with pork producers, telling the court in written filings that Proposition 12 would be a "wholesale change in how pork is raised and marketed in this country" and that it has "thrown a giant wrench" into the nation's pork market.
Pork producers argued that 72% of farmers use individual pens for sows that do not allow them to turn around and that even farmers who house sows in larger group pens do not provide the space California would require.
They also say that the way the pork market works, with cuts of meat from various producers being combined before sale, it is likely all pork would have to meet California standards, regardless of where it is sold. Complying with Proposition 12 could cost the industry $290 million to $350 million, they said.
Animals rights groups cheered the decision.
"We're delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld California Proposition 12 – the nation's strongest farm animal welfare law – and made clear that preventing animal cruelty and protecting public health are core functions of our state governments," the president of the Humane Society of the United States, Kitty Block, wrote in a statement. The organization had backed Proposition 12 and was a participant in the case.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
