UNITED STATES v. N. J. STATE LOTTERY COMM'N(1975)
A licensed New Jersey radio station sought, but was denied, declaratory relief from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against the application of 18 U.S.C. 1304 to the broadcast of winning numbers in a lawful state-run lottery such as New Jersey has. Subsequent to the Court of Appeals' reversal of the FCC's denial of relief, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 1307 (a) (2) making 1304 inapplicable to information concerning a state-authorized lottery broadcast in that State or an adjacent State having such a lottery. Held: In view of the enactment of 1307 the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals so that it may consider whether the case is moot as the Government contends, or is not moot because, as intervenor State of New Hampshire contends, 1307 in violation of First Amendment rights would still not allow broadcasters in Vermont, which has no lottery, to broadcast winning numbers in the New Hampshire lottery.
491 F.2d 219, vacated and remanded.
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioners. On the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Kauper, Louis F. Claiborne, Danny J. Boggs, and Joseph A. Marino.
Stephen Skillman, Assistant Attorney General of New Jersey, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was William F. Hyland, Attorney General. *
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Robert K. Killian, Attorney General, and Barney Lapp and Daniel R. Schaefer, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Connecticut; by Warren B. Rudman, Attorney General, and David H. Souter, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of New Hampshire; by Louis Schwartz and Robert A. Woods for the Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission; by William J. Brown, Attorney General, [420 U.S. 371, 372] and Stephen T. Parisi for the State of Ohio; by Verne Hodge, Attorney General, and Henry L. Feuerzeig, First Assistant Attorney General, for the Government of the Virgin Islands; by John B. Summers for the National Association of Broadcasters; and by Thomas R. Asher, Melvin L. Wulf, and Joel M. Gora for the American Civil Liberties Union. [420 U.S. 371, 372]
This case involves a question regarding the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 1304, which provides:
Subsequent to the briefing and oral argument of the case in this Court, Congress passed and the President signed Pub. L. 93-583, 88 Stat. 1916, codified at 18 U.S.C. 1307 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), which, in relevant part, provides:
In view of the enactment of 1307, we deem it appropriate to remand to the Court of Appeals so that it may consider whether the case is now moot. Accordingly, the judgment below is vacated and the case is remanded.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
With all respect, I do not believe that this case has become moot - certainly not for the reasons intimated by the Court. The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. It is to me shocking that a radio station or a newspaper can be regulated by a court or by a commission, to the extent of being prevented from publishing any item of "news" of the day. So to hold would be a prior restraint of a simple and unadulterated form, barred by constitutional principles. Can anyone doubt that the winner of a lottery is prime news by our press standards?
In our history, Congress has shown at times an appetite for performing the judicial function of finding people guilty. That is the reason why the Constitution contains Art. I, 9, cl. 3, which outlaws bills of attainder. See United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946). For Congress to hold that the radio station in the present case was or was not guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1304 would be a flagrant usurpation of Art. III functions.
Our decision should rest not on what Congress has done but on the merits of the controversy, which do not seem to me to be substantial. I would not presume that Congress undertook to pass on the merits of the claim at [420 U.S. 371, 375] issue before us. * I would not remand for consideration of the issue of mootness. To me it is manifest that the case is not moot and that the judgment below should be affirmed.
[ Footnote * ] As the State of New Hampshire points out, the new 1307 even on its face does not resolve the claims of all parties to this action. New Hampshire, which was granted leave to intervene in the Court of Appeals, conducts a lottery; neighboring Vermont does not. Title 18 U.S.C. 1307 (a) (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), upon which the Court relies, applies only to broadcasts by a station in the State which conducts the lottery, or in an adjacent State which also conducts a lottery; presumably, then, 1304 remains applicable to a Vermont radio station which desires to broadcast information concerning the New Hampshire lottery. The restraint imposed by 1304 will thus continue to inhibit the New Hampshire lottery with respect to certain groups of prospective participants, including New Hampshire residents who listen to Vermont radio stations and Vermont residents who might wish to cross the state line and participate. [420 U.S. 371, 376]