United States v. New Jersey State Lottery Commission

1975-02-25
Share:

Headline: Broadcasting state lottery winning numbers is allowed in many cases; Court vacates lower judgment and sends the case back after Congress exempted some state-run lottery broadcasts from a criminal ban.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Allows broadcasters in lottery states to air winning numbers without criminal penalty.
  • Stations in adjacent states that don't run lotteries may still face restrictions.
  • Sends the dispute back to lower court rather than resolving First Amendment questions.
Topics: lottery broadcasts, First Amendment, broadcasting rules, state lotteries, federal criminal law

Summary

Background

A New Jersey licensed radio station challenged a federal law that made it a crime to broadcast information about lotteries, arguing the station should be allowed to announce the winning number from New Jersey’s state-run lottery. The Federal Communications Commission denied relief, the Third Circuit reversed, and the case reached this Court. While the case was pending, Congress amended the law to exempt certain state-run lottery broadcasts.

Reasoning

The central question the Court considered was whether the recent statute change made the dispute meaningless. The new law says broadcasts of a State’s lottery information are not covered by the criminal ban when the station is licensed in the State or in an adjacent State that also conducts the lottery. Because that change directly affects the relief the radio station sought, the United States asked the Court to dismiss the case as moot. The Court agreed it was appropriate to send the case back to the Court of Appeals so that court can decide whether the case is now moot and vacated the earlier judgment.

Real world impact

The ruling means many broadcasters in States that run lotteries — and some in neighboring States that also run lotteries — may legally air winning numbers under the amended law. The decision does not resolve broader First Amendment questions. The case was not decided on the merits here, and the lower court must now consider whether the controversy still needs a final judicial answer.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas dissented, arguing the case was not moot and raising First Amendment and bill-of-attainder concerns, urging the Court to decide the underlying free-press issues rather than remand.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases