Supreme Court Notebook

Court won't hear restitution claim in Ponzi case WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from investment funds seeking repayment of their losses in a $3.7 billion Ponzi scheme operated by Minnesota businessman Thomas Petters. The funds together lost $165 million and challenged a federal judge's order denying restitution to any of Petters' victims. Among other things, the court said the victims would have other ways of recouping some of their money. The justices on Monday refused to disturb the ruling. A federal law generally requires a court to order restitution as part of a defendant's sentence, but allows for some exceptions. The judge in this case said that restitution would be too complex, take too long and result in the payment of less than a penny for each dollar victims lost. Texas Inmate to die this week loses at high court HOUSTON (AP) -- A convicted killer set to die this week in Texas has lost an appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices, without comment Monday, refused a request to review the case of 42-year-old John Balentine. The former auto mechanic and laborer, who's a native of Jackson County, Ark., is scheduled for lethal injection Wednesday evening in Huntsville for a triple slaying in Amarillo in 1998. His lawyer had asked the high court to review arguments that his trial lawyers didn't adequately inform jurors about Balentine's childhood of poverty, violence and abuse as they were considering punishment. Balentine still has other appeals in the courts, including another request to the Supreme Court to stop the punishment because earlier appeals attorneys were deficient. High court upholds Nevada ethics law WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld a Nevada ethics law that governs when lawmakers should refrain from voting on official business because they might have a conflict of interest. The court reversed a Nevada Supreme Court decision that said elected officials have a constitutional right to vote on official business that the state law violated. The decision came in the case of Michael Carrigan, a Sparks, Nev., council member who voted on a casino project even though his campaign manager served as a project consultant. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said an elected official's vote "is not his own speech but a mechanical function of government -- the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature's power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal." The Nevada Commission on Ethics found that Carrigan's vote violated a provision of the ethics law that lays out various relationships that should disqualify an official from voting, including the official's relatives and business associates. The ethics panel said Carrigan should have abstained from voting because his friend and campaign manager, Carlos Vasquez, also worked as a consultant for the Red Hawk Land Co., which was backing the Lazy 8 casino project. Carrigan challenged that ruling, leading to the state court decision striking down part of the law. The Associated Press joined 15 other news organizations and press freedom groups in a brief supporting the Nevada ethics commission. The case is Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 10-568. Court to decide whether farmers must pay tax WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court will decide whether a couple must pay taxes on the bankruptcy sale of their family farm. The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Lynwood and Brenda Hall. The Halls were forced to sell their family farm for $960,000 to settle their bankruptcy debts. That sale brought about capital gains taxes of $26,000.The Halls wanted the taxes treated as part of the bankruptcy, paying part of it and having the court discharge the rest. The IRS objected to that plan, saying all of the taxes must be paid and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with the tax agency. The high court will review that decision. The case is Lynwood and Brenda Hall v. United States, 10-875. Court rejects sex bias claim on citizenship rule WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a challenge by a Mexican-born man to a citizenship law that treats men and women differently. The court split 4-4 in the case of Ruben Flores-Villar, an outcome that upholds his criminal conviction on immigration charges. The tie vote resolves Flores-Villar's case, but sets no national precedent. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part because she worked on the case when she was Solicitor General. Flores-Villar, 36, was born in Tijuana to an American father and Mexican mother. If his parents' nationalities were reversed, Flores-Villar would be a citizen. American mothers need only to have lived in the United States continuously for a year before the birth of a child. It's longer for a citizen father. When the court heard the case in November, the justices expressed some sympathy for Flores-Villar's plight, but noted that the court has never taken the step of granting citizenship -- the only outcome that would have allowed him to prevail on his appeal of the immigration charges. Court to decide on appeals deadline WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court will decide when to start the one-year period criminals have to appeal their convictions. The high court on Monday agreed to hear from Raphael Gonzalez, who wants to appeal his murder conviction in Texas. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear him, saying Gonzalez missed his deadline to appeal. Gonzalez says different federal courts use different ways to count that one year. He missed a filing deadline at the state appeals court, and the court started counting his one year from the last day of that filing period. Other federal courts would have started counting from the day the state court announced Gonzalez had missed the deadline. The high court will decide which is correct. The case is Gonzalez v Thaler, 10-895. Court orders reconsideration of parole judgment WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision to release a criminal on parole. The high court threw out a lower court decision ordering John Pirtle and other prisoners released from prison on parole. Pirtle was convicted of killing his wife, and the parole board started denying him parole in 2002. Pirtle sued in federal court, saying his parole was denied without any proof that he posed a danger if he got out. The lower courts agreed with him and ordered him and other prisoners in similar situations released on parole. The high court threw out that decision in a summary judgment and ordered the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reconsider it. The case is Cate v. Pirtle, 210-868. Court turns away appeal over Steinbeck copyrights WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a son of author John Steinbeck over the publishing rights to "The Grapes of Wrath" and other early works. The appeal by Thomas Steinbeck is similar to the one the high court rejected in 2009. They both stem from a dispute over who controls the rights to publish Steinbeck's works. The court on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling dismissing Thomas Steinbeck's claims. He is the author's sole surviving son. He and Steinbeck granddaughter Blake Smyle already receive a portion of the proceeds from the sales of Steinbeck's books. Published: Tue, Jun 14, 2011