# Opposition Brief — United States v. Players International, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_1114%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1999 - **Citation:** 525 U.S. 1094 ## Text Supreme Court. Uj ¢ 2 es i 2D 0 NOV 25 1998 No. 98-721 CLERK IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1998 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, V. PLAYERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., eft al. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION STEVEN P. PERSKIE W. RANDOLPH TESLIK, P.C.* SHERRI A. AFFRUNTI TOM W. DAVIDSON HORN, GOLDBERG, GORNY, EDWARD J. MCANDREW PLACKTER, WEISS & PERSKIE AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, 1300 Atlantic Avenue HAUER & FELD, L.L.P. Suite 500 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 Suite 400 (609) 343-7807 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 887-4000 November 25, 1998 *Counsel of Record IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1998 No. 98-721 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, V. PLAYERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION LIST OF PARENT COMPANIES AND NONWHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES Respondent Players International, Inc. is a publicly traded corporation, with wholly owned subsidiaries. The following Respondents are wholly owned — subsidiaries of Players International, Inc.: Players Lake Charles, LLC, Players Star Partnership; Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc. STATEMENT Contrary to Petitioners’ assertion, Respondents do not contend “that the application of Section 1304 to broadcast advertising for lawful commercial casino gambling in States that permit such gambling violates the First Amendment under the commercial speech doctrine ... .” Pet. at 8. Instead, 2 Respondents assert that Section 1304 abridges thei First Amendment rights to broadcast truthful, non-misleadiny advertisements for lawful, commercial casino gaming in any State of the United States. Respondents are not otherwis: dissatisfied with Petitioners’ statements pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 24. 1(a), (b), (d), (e), (f) or (g). ARGUMENT In two filings before the Court, Petitioners request that the Court deny certiorari in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. United States, No. 98-387, and await the Third Circuit’s forthcoming decision in this case before deciding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1304. If the Court chosses to exercise certiorari jurisdiction over Greater New Or/eans Broadcasting Ass'n v. United States, No. 98-387, at this time, then the Court should do likewise in this case and should dispose of both matters on a consolidated basis. Consideration of both cases will present the best opportunity to resolve Section 1304’s constitutionality on the strength or weakness of divergent factual records. Consolidation also will comport with this Court’s past exercises of certiorari before judgment. Respondents agree that the Circuits’ divergent views on Section 1304’s constitutionality are appropriate for this Court’s review. See Pet. at 12. By consolidating both cases, this Court will have before it two, very different decisions. One upholds the statute; the other invalidates it. One finds the evidentiary record largely irrelevant; the other finds it wholly insufficient. The Greater New Orleans Broadcasting petitioners argue that Section 1304’s constitutionality is a doctrinal issue that the Fifth Circuit decided incorrectly. See Pet. in No. 98-387, at 11-18; Reply in No. 98-387, at 1-2 & n.1. The respondents there, Petitioners here, argue that the Players record best illuminates the constitutional issue. See Br. in Opp. in 98-387, at 18; Pet. at 12-13. Considered together, these two cases afford an opportunity for the Court to resolve Section 1304’s constitutionality, while = 3 clarifying the government’s evidentiary burden in_ the commercial speech analysis. Respondents concur with the Greater New Orleans Broadcasting petitioners that their case was decided incorrectly. Petitioners here presented no evidence in that case sufficient to sustain Section 1304. See Pet. at 22-23; Br. in Opp. in No. 98-387, at 9-10 & 18-19. If the Court were to exercise certiorari and agree, then its consideration of Players becomes critical to determining whether the government’s “more illuminating record,” Pet. at 13, can support Section 1304 in light of 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996). Consolidation also will comport with past instances in which this Court has exercised certiorari before judgment when presented with multiple cases involving the same issues. See, e.g., New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U.S. 392, 418 (1970), McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros, 372 U.S. 10, 12 (1963); McElroy v. United States, 361 U.S. 281, 282-83 (1960). In these cases, the Court exercised certiorari before judgment to consolidate one case with another case, pending before the Court, that presented a similar or identical question of constitutional importance. Issuing certiorari and consolidating both cases therefore will be consistent with the Court’s past practices. 4 CONCLUSION If the Court chooses to resolve the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1304 at this time, the petitions for a writ of certiorari in this case and in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. United States, No. 98-387, should be granted and those cases should be consolidated. Respectfully submitted, W. RANDOLPH TESLIK, P.C.* TOM W. DAVIDSON EDWARD J. MCANDREW AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P. 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 887-4000 STEVEN P. PERSKIE SHERRI A. AFFRUNTI HORN, GOLDBERG, GORNY, PLACKTER, WEISS & PERSKIE 1300 Atlantic Avenue Suite 500 Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 (609) 343-7807 *Counsel of Record --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_1114%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.