SUPREME COURT Telemarketing? Or fraud?

Ohio is among the states that asked the high court to hear the case.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a case with implications for nearly every family in America, the Supreme Court will consider when charity telemarketing calls go beyond irritating -- to fraudulent.
The court said today it will decide whether telemarketers can be pursued for fraud for asking for cash for a worthwhile charity, when much of the money is being kept by the telemarketer.
The case stems from a fraud action that Illinois brought against a company that raised money for Vietnam veterans.
The charity, VietNow, had an agreement with Telemarketing Associates Inc. in which the charity got 15 percent of the money and the fund-raiser kept the rest for salaries, expenses and profit.
VietNow had no problem with the arrangement, and the state's complaint was dismissed on free-speech grounds.
Quotable
The Illinois Supreme Court "transformed the First Amendment into a license for unscrupulous fund-raisers to defraud the public in the name of raising money for charity," Illinois Attorney General James Ryan told the nation's high court in a filing.
State prosecutors want to prove that telemarketers intentionally misled donors.
Other states that asked the Supreme Court to hear this case were Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth said states are getting more complaints about solicitors, including some who falsely claim to be raising money for victims of the terrorist attacks.
In a series of decisions in the 1980s, the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled against states in disputes over charitable solicitations.
Other decisions
In other decisions today:
*The Supreme Court agreed to decide if two cancer-stricken Vietnam veterans can reopen a challenge against chemical companies over exposure to Agent Orange.
The case poses an important question for the court: when should people be allowed to bypass previous class-action settlements.
A lower court said that the vets deserved a chance to sue, despite the $180 million settlement in 1984 that chemical companies considered the final chapter in the dispute over Agent Orange.
The companies, including Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co., argued that it's unfair for people to emerge now seeking money.
U.S. armed forces used Agent Orange in the 1960s and 1970s to clear dense jungle growth in Vietnam. Veterans that sued Agent Orange manufacturers said exposure to the defoliant caused health problems -- including cancer and birth defects.
*The Supreme Court indicated it wants to take it's time in deciding whether to take a broad look at college affirmative action programs.
Justices have been asked to review cases involving the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law school admissions policies. An announcement is expected late this year or early in 2003.
Lawyers for black and Hispanic students asked the court to put the cases on a fast track. The court refused, without comment.
An appeals court upheld the law school admission policy but has not yet ruled in a companion case addressing the school's undergraduate policy.
The Supreme Court is being urged to review both cases without waiting for a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.