October Term 2000 · Docket 99-804

Does issuing a license count as parting with property under federal mail fraud law?

The dispute centers on whether a state or municipality parts with property when it issues a license.

Official caption
Cleveland v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    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.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the federal mail fraud statute. It asks if government-issued licenses qualify as property for fraud purposes.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 10, 2000.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

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.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

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.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case is submitted after the arguments concluded.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

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.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON