Opinion
No. 93-2068
June 12, 1995
Howard T. Rosenblatt argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jerrold J. Ganzfried and Ellen S. Winter.
Deputy Solicitor General Bender argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, and Cornelia T. L. Pillard.
Michael L. Martinez argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Steven D. Gordon and William J. Dempster.
Anthony C. Epstein, Steven R. Shapiro, Arthur B. Spitzer, Leslie A. Bruekner, and Marc D. Stern filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of Hawaii et al. by Margery S. Bronster, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Girard D. Lau, Deputy Attorney General, Winston Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of Delaware, Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of Idaho, Pamela Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas, Chris Gorman, Attorney General of Kentucky, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota, Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Victoria A. Graffeo, Attorney General of New York, Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Mark Barnett, Attorney General of South Dakota, Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah, Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General of Vermont, James S. Gilmore III, Attorney General of Virginia, James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Richard Weil, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Page 322 Island, and Alva A. Swan, Acting Attorney General of the Virgin Islands.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. Jones, ante, p. 304.