Appellee filed suit in the District Court to bar enforcement of
18 U.S.C. § 1302 -- which,
inter alia, prohibits the
mailing of any "publication of any kind . . . containing any list
of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of" a lottery, gift
enterprise, or scheme offering prizes dependent in whole or in part
upon lot or chance -- based on the First Amendment and the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court found § 1302 valid
as applied to advertisements, but unconstitutional as applied to
prize lists. After appellants sought review of the ruling on prize
lists and appellee cross-appealed from the ruling on
advertisements, Congress passed two laws affecting §1302's
coverage. The parties have agreed to dismiss the cross-appeal.
Held: The appeal on the issue whether § 1302 is
constitutional as applied to prize lists is moot. Since appellants
now take the position that the statute does not apply to the
noncommercial publishing of prize lists, appellee is willing to
forgo any further claim to the declaratory and equitable relief
sought in its complaint. Thus, there is no longer any live
controversy.
677
F. Supp. 1400, vacated and remanded.
Page 490 U. S. 226
PER CURIAM.
We initially noted probable jurisdiction of an appeal and a
cross-appeal in this matter. 488 U.S. 815 (1988). Appellee filed
suit in District Court to bar enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 1302,
based on the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief
against the Postmaster General, among others. Section 1302
prohibits the mailing of any
"publication of any kind containing any advertisement of any
lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme of any kind offering prizes
dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance, or containing any
list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery,
gift enterprise, or scheme."
The District Court found § 1302 valid as applied to
advertisements, but unconstitutional as applied to prize lists,
because the statute could prevent the publication of prize lists in
news reports. The District Court granted an injunction limited to
the latter issue.
Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc. v. Postmaster
General, 677 F.
Supp. 1400 (Minn.1987). Appellants sought review of the ruling
on prize lists, and appellee cross-appealed from the ruling on
advertisements.
After the Court had noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals,
Congress passed two laws affecting the coverage of § 1302. Charity
Games Advertising Clarification Act of 1988, § 2(a), Pub.L.
100-625, 102 Stat. 3205 (Nov. 7, 1988); Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act, § 21, Pub.L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2486 (Oct. 17, 1988). Although
the first statute does not take effect until May 7, 1990, the
parties agreed to dismiss the cross-appeal under this Court's Rule
53.
Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc. v. Postmaster General,
488 U.S. 998 (1989).
Page 490 U. S. 227
In this Court, appellants now take the position that the statute
does not apply to the noncommercial publishing of prize lists.
Brief for Appellants 12, 14-30. In light of this concession,
appellee, the original plaintiff in the case, states its
willingness to forgo any further claim to the declaratory and
equitable relief sought in its complaint. In these circumstances,
we conclude that there is no longer any live controversy on the
issue whether the statute is constitutional as it applies to prize
lists, and that this appeal is moot. There is no justification for
our retaining jurisdiction of a civil case where no real
controversy is before us.
Deakins v. Monaghan,
484 U. S. 193,
200-201 (1988). We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand
for the District Court to dismiss the portions of the complaint
remaining at issue on this appeal.
See id. at 200;
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S.
36,
340 U. S. 39-40
(1950).
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE WHITE and JUSTICE MARSHALL dissent.
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
In my opinion, appellants' concession is a reason for affirming,
rather than vacating, the judgment of the District Court insofar as
it enjoins the Postmaster General from enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 1302
as applied to prize lists. I therefore respectfully dissent.
