The high court on Tuesday refused to hear an appeal from the seven-time Cy Young winner, who has an upcoming perjury trial in Washington.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Clemens’ defamation suit against his longtime trainer Brian McNamee, saying a Texas federal court didn’t have jurisdiction over Clemens’ claims involving statements McNamee made in New York.
Clemens wanted that decision overturned, but the high court refused to take up the case.
McNamee said in New York he had injected Clemens with steroids and HGH and repeated those allegations during an interview at his New York home to a writer for SI.com.
Clemens has denied using performance-enhancing drugs, and testified in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in February 2008 that he never used drugs in his 24-year career.
Prosecutors say that was a lie and have charged him with false statements, perjury and obstruction of Congress. The former pitching star’s criminal trial is expected to begin on July 6.
The case is Clemens v. McNamee, 10-966.
Other Supreme Court actions
Also on Tuesday, the justices agreed to consider whether an expert witness can be called to analyze lab results where the forensic analyst who ran the DNA does not testify and the lab report is not admitted into evidence.
The Illinois Supreme Court permitted the state to introduce through an expert the substance of a report that matched DNA from the crime scene to the suspect in a rape and kidnapping case. The appellant claims this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
In an unrelated Confrontation Clause case decided last week, the U.S. Supreme Court said the lab analyst who testifies at a criminal trial must be the one who performed or witnessed the lab tests in question.
The case decided on Thursday is Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 09-10876.
The new Confrontation Clause case is Williams v. Illinois, 10-8505.
The high court also remanded a case dealing with federal judges’ salaries to the Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit.
A group of seven current and former judges pressed the court to review the constitutionality of a federal law impinging on their right to cost-of-living pay raises.
The case is Beer, et al., v. U.S., 09-1395.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Green Party of Connecticut challenging state requirements for third party candidates to qualify for public campaign funds.
The justices did not comment Tuesday in refusing to disturb a federal appeals court ruling in favor of the state.
On Monday, the court struck down an Arizona law providing matching public funds to candidates to offset heavy spending by privately funded rivals. An appeals court had earlier voided a similar provision in Connecticut, but upheld portions of the law dealing with third party candidates.
The case is Connecticut v Lenge, 10-795.
The justices threw out an appeals court ruling upholding Maine’s restrictions on the sale of doctors’ drug prescribing habits, following last week’s high court ruling striking down a similar law in Vermont.
The federal appeals court in Boston upheld data-mining restrictions in Maine and New Hampshire, while the New York-based appeals court struck down the Vermont law.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last week that the Vermont law unfairly restricts data-mining and pharmaceutical companies from using the information detailing doctors’ prescribing records, though without patient names.
Tuesday’s order directs the Boston-based court to take a new look at the Maine law in light of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Daily Record’s Erin Drenning contributed to this report.