Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Wednesday, March 27, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Supreme Court turns down Democrat official who made illegal donations

Gerald Lundergan was convicted of illegally funding his daughter's 2014 bid for Senate.

WASHINGTON (CN) — The former head of Kentucky's Democratic Party lost a bid Monday to contest his campaign-finance conviction before the nation's highest court.

Gerald Lundergan, 74, was convicted in 2019 for making more than $200,000 in un-reimbursed contributions from his catering and events business to his daughter's 2014 Senate campaign.

Prosecutors went after Lundergan and political consultant Dale Eamons, saying they knowingly spent funds in excess of federal quotas on Alison Lundergan Grimes' Senate campaign against a powerful Republican opponent, Mitch McConnell, who is now Senate minority leader.

Attorneys for Lundergan argued in an appeal to the Supreme Court that previous contributions were reimbursed, but, "during a fast-paced and often chaotic campaign," some of the funds were not compensated for.

Lundergan was sentenced to 21 months in prison and a $150,000 fine. He was sent to federal prison in 2021 after the Sixth Circuit upheld his conviction.

His attorneys argued that the money should not have been classified as a corporate contribution and Lundergan's prosecution amounts to a violation of the First Amendment because the money was given to a family member.

"In permitting the corporate-contribution ban to be applied to a category of contributions that the government failed to connect to any risk of quid pro quo corruption, the court of appeals has extended the government’s regulatory reach far beyond what the First Amendment permits," the petition for a writ of certiorari states.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Lundergan's appeal and, per its custom, did not comment on the denial. The case was one of dozens denied in a list of orders Monday that also included three grants.

One case taken up by the court will determine whether citizens have the right to sue government-operated nursing homes for violating the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, which lays out federal standards of care for health-assistance facilities.

The family of Grogi Talveski, who died in late 2021, sued claim that a state-run facility in Indiana administered "powerful and unnecessary psychotropic medications for purposes of chemical restraint," to Talveski, a dementia patient, and then retaliated against the family for complaining about his treatment by moving Talveski to a different care center.

The Seventh Circuit ordered a trial on the merits of the case, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court from the government agency in charge of the nursing home, the Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County.

The state companies contend that allowing citizens to claim civil rights violations against state-run centers is, essentially, "federalizing much medical-malpractice litigation and nullifying important state medical-malpractice rules." They want the court for clear tests to determine when and how people can proceed with claims.

In addition to the Talveski case, the high court took up one that wrestles with the question of which types of employees qualify for overtime pay under federal law.

Michael Hewitt supervised offshore oil tanks for Helix Energy Solutions Group and was paid $963 for each day of work, raking in a salary that ranged from $143,000 to $248,000 a year. He was later fired and sued the company, claiming he was due overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While some employees who work more than 40 hours a week must be paid overtime, employees in executive roles who make at least $100,000 and $455 a week can be classified as exempt from overtime pay.

The Fifth Circuit ruled that Hewitt was owed overtime pay because he had a guaranteed daily rate for work, not a weekly one, despite the fact that his daily pay was more than double the required weekly pay for exempt employees.

Helix appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

The third case the court took up will review a Ninth Circuit opinion that determined people can be held responsible for fraud in bankruptcy cases, even if they were not aware that the fraud occurred.

Married couple David and Kate Bartenwerfer sold their house to Kieran Buckley and, during the process, David made false statements about the property. Buckley later sued and both David and Kate were determined to be responsible for the fraud.

The pair filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, at which point a judge determined that Kate's judgement of fraud could be discharged because she had not known about her husband's misrepresentation of the property.

But the Ninth Circuit determined that fraud judgements cannot be discharged from a bankruptcy case even if the person did not have knowledge about the fraud.

Kate appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Per its custom, the court did not issue any statement accompanying any of Monday’s orders.

Follow @@rosemwagner
Categories / Appeals, National, Politics

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...