Jerome Dewald v. Gene Wriggelsworth, 748 F.3d 295

Background

In the 2000 presidential cycle Jerome Dewald created two PACs and solicited federal campaign contributions using FEC donor lists, collecting about $750,000. He diverted most funds to his for‑profit consulting firm and personal accounts.
Dewald was convicted in Michigan of obtaining money by false pretenses, common‑law fraud, and larceny by conversion; state courts affirmed.
Dewald sought federal habeas relief arguing the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) preempted Michigan’s prosecutions because his conduct implicated federally regulated campaign activities.
The district court granted habeas relief for the fraud and larceny convictions, concluding FECA preempted the state prosecutions.
The Sixth Circuit majority reversed, holding AEDPA requires Supreme Court precedent to be “clearly established” and no controlling Supreme Court decision squarely addresses FECA preemption of state criminal prosecutions.
A dissent would have affirmed the district court, arguing general Supreme Court preemption principles are clearly established and the state court unreasonably applied them by failing to analyze FECA’s preemption clause and related FEC regulations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FECA preempts state criminal prosecutions arising from misuse of federally connected campaign apparatus	Dewald: FECA and FEC regulations occupy and preempt the field for conduct involving federal campaign organization, disclosure, and use of donor lists, so state prosecutions are preempted as applied	Michigan: No Supreme Court has clearly held FECA preempts state fraud prosecutions; state courts reasonably construed FECA narrowly and other courts have found non‑preemption	Majority: No clearly established Supreme Court law applying FECA preemption to this context; AEDPA bars habeas relief; reverse district court
Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied preemption standards under AEDPA	Dewald: State court ignored FECA text, regulations, and failed to consider "as‑applied" preemption; its decision was unreasonable	Michigan: State court cited circuit authority adopting a narrow reading of FECA; fair‑minded jurists can disagree; presumption against preemption appropriate	Majority: Even applying general preemption principles, the state court’s narrow reading was reasonable under AEDPA; relief denied
Role of FEC regulations (e.g., exceptions for voting fraud) in preemption analysis	Dewald: FEC regs and FECA provisions directly govern the specific campaign conduct at issue; state prosecutions intrude on federal scheme	Michigan: Regulations include explicit non‑preemption for voting fraud and similar offenses; reasonable to allow state prosecution for fraud not plainly within FECA’s covered domain	Majority: FEC regulation excluding voting fraud supports reasonableness of state‑court decision; not sufficient to show unreasonableness under AEDPA
Proper scope of AEDPA deference when Supreme Court hasn’t addressed a statutory preemption question	Dewald: General preemption doctrines are clearly established and apply; state court unreasonably declined to apply them	Michigan: AEDPA forbids creating new rules absent Supreme Court holdings directly on point; fair‑minded disagreement defeats habeas relief	Majority: AEDPA requires clearly established Supreme Court law; absent it, habeas relief improper; reverse

Key Cases Cited

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states cannot add qualifications for federal office under the Elections Clause)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA requires application of Supreme Court holdings, not extensions; general standards may nonetheless be clearly established)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (distinguishing applying a rule from extending it; case‑by‑case application may be required)
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006) (declining habeas relief where Supreme Court precedent did not squarely address the issue)
Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (2008) (reversed habeas grant where no clearly established rule required a different standard)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (framework for express, field, and conflict preemption analysis)
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947) (presumption against preemption of traditional state powers unless clear congressional intent)
City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57 (1988) (courts defer to agency interpretations of preemption absent contrary congressional intent)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (analysis of express preemption and presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (under AEDPA, correctness of state decision is not the inquiry; only unreasonableness justifies relief)