{"argument_date":"2000-10-10T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2000-10-10T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Mogin stated the core issue is whether issuing a license counts as parting with property.","Mr. Dreeben asserted that a video poker license is property for both the state and the licensee.","Mr. Dreeben claimed the side that brought the case's scheme violates both clauses of the mail fraud statute."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 3-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 3-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 29-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 45, lines 29-31"}]}],"caption":"Cleveland v. United States","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.843717Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The dispute centers on whether a state or municipality parts with property when it issues a license.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 3-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 3-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2000-10-10T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-804.html","primary_docket":"99-804","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:30:35.653718Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case tests the scope of the federal mail fraud statute. It asks if government-issued licenses qualify as property for fraud purposes."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 3-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 3-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 10, 2000."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned because issuing a license is not parting with property.","The government wants the conviction upheld because a license is property in both hands."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 3-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 3-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Mr. Mogin argues that a state does not part with property when it issues a license.","Mr. Dreeben argues that a video poker license is property for both the state and the licensee."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 3-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 3-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case is submitted after the arguments concluded."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 29-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 45, lines 29-31"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the reach of federal fraud laws. It determines whether government licenses trigger federal criminal jurisdiction. The outcome shapes how prosecutors charge fraud involving state-issued permits."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 3-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 3-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 29-31","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 45, lines 29-31"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-804-cleveland-v-united-states","term":"2000","title":"Does issuing a license count as parting with property under federal mail fraud law?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 3-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 3-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-804.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-43"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}