“The exercise of congressional authority under the granted power of the Commerce Clause for the permitted end of controlling illegal gambling as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1955 is clearly constitutional.”
How later courts described this case
- “The exercise of congressional authority under the granted power of the Commerce Clause for the permitted end of controlling illegal gambling as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1955 is clearly constitutional.”
- upholding 18 U.S.C. § 1955
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied. 1
. In our original opinion we noted that House Report 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., contained the following explanation of the word “conducts” :
“The term ‘conducts’ refers both to high level bosses and street level employees. It does not include the player in an illegal game of chance, nor the person who participates in an illegal gambling activity by placing a bet.”
See 1970 Code Cong. & Adm.News at p. 4029. Petitioners argue that the foregoing is contained within a paragraph of section analysis which discusses 18 U.S.C. § 1511 (“Obstruction of State or local law”), see House Report 91-1549, TITLE VIII, PART B. 1970 Code Cong. & Adm.News at pp. 4028-29, and that the word “conducts” has a different meaning as used in Section 1955. A close reading of the House Report shows that Congress intended the word “conducts” to have the same meaning in each instance. See 1970 Code Cong. & Admin. News at pp. 4028-4030.