Washington ? The Supreme Court is taking on the subject of pesky phone solicitors in a case that could give states more ammunition to go after people who raise money over the phone in the name of charity but pocket much of the cash.

Justices said Monday they would decide next year whether Illinois can sue a company that kept 85 percent of the money it raised for Vietnam veterans without telling donors.

Illinois and 18 other states had urged the court to use the case to make it easier to pursue fraud cases against people who misrepresent their solicitations. Justices will balance the free-speech rights of callers against state public protection efforts.

If Illinois wins, telemarketers could be forced to reveal during calls how much of the money goes to charities.

Charity solicitors bring in more than $200 billion a year, and much of the work is handled by for-profit fund-raising companies, the court was told.

The charity in this case, 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 in state court on free-speech grounds.

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 Atty. Gen. James Ryan said in the appeal.

Michael Ficaro, an attorney for the telemarketing company, said Monday that the Supreme Court has already ruled that solicitations on behalf of charities are constitutionally protected free speech.

Ficaro said states unhappy with the financial arrangements should regulate charities, not pursue the fund-raisers.

Illinois prosecutors want to prove that telemarketing callers intentionally misled donors.

“When people give their money to a charity, do they think 90 percent is going into the fund-raisers’ pocket, to the person who just called them on the phone?” asked Floyd Perkins, who handles charity cases in the attorney general’s office. “Most people don’t think that’s right.”

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.

In other action Monday, justices:

Dismissed a lawsuit brought by Canada, which was trying to use a U.S. anti-racketeering law to sue over cigarette smuggling. Canadian leaders contended that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. tried to get around taxes by smuggling tobacco into Canada through an Indian reservation.

Refused to keep a California sheriff and his deputy from being sued for ordering the pepper-spraying of shackled anti-logging protesters. The court turned aside without comment a case that could have clarified when officers have immunity for on-the-job actions.

Agreed to decide whether 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?