14
Syllabus
in the open market, Louisiana's authority to select video poker licensees rests on no similar asset. It rests upon the State's sovereign right to exclude applicants deemed unsuitable to run video poker operations. Pp. 23-24.
(d) The Government's reading of § 1341 invites the Court to approve a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by Congress. Equating issuance of licenses or permits with deprivation of property would subject to federal mail fraud prosecution a wide range of conduct traditionally regulated by state and local authorities. Unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, the Court will not read a statute to have significantly changed the federal-state balance in the prosecution of crimes. E. g., Jones v. United States, 529 U. S. 848, 858. Pp. 24-25.
(e) Finally, the Government argues that § 1341 defines two independent offenses: (1) "any scheme or artifice to defraud" and (2) "any scheme or artifice . . . for obtaining . . . property by means of false . . . representations." Proceeding from that argument, the Government asserts that a video poker license is property in the hands of the licensee, hence Cleveland "obtain[ed] . . . property" and thereby committed the second offense even if the license is not property in the State's hands. But McNally refused to construe the two phrases identifying the proscribed schemes independently. 483 U. S., at 358. Indeed, McNally explained that § 1341 had its origin in the desire to protect individual property rights and that any benefit the Government derives from the statute must be limited to the Government's interests as property holder. Id., at 359, n. 8. Pp. 25-26.
182 F. 3d 296, reversed and remanded.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Paul Mogin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert B. Barnett and Joseph G. Petrosinelli.
Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, Barbara McDowell, and Joel M. Gershowitz.*
*Lisa Kemler and Ellen S. Podgor filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by Robin S. Conrad, Carter G. Phillips, Richard D. Bernstein, and Joseph S. Miller; and for Samsung Electronics Co. by Richard L. Stanley, Cecilia H. Gonzalez, David J. Healey, and Lisa S. McCalmont.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007