No. 98-1464
In the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1998
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
CHARLIE CONDON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
REPLY MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONERS
SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
In the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1998
No. 98-1464
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
CHARLIE CONDON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
REPLY MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONERS
Respondents agree that the Court should grant certiorari in this case to
review the court of appeals' decision holding the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act of 1994 (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, unconstitutional. Resp. Mem. 1-2,
8. Specifically, respondents point out that "[t]he four circuits in
which the issue has arisen are evenly split in their results," and
they submit that "[c]learly, a decision of this Court is necessary
to resolve the present inconsistency in the enforceability of [the DPPA]
in different regions of the country." Id. at 2.
Respondents urge the Court to rephrase the question presented by the certiorari
petition, however, to limit the issue before the Court to whether the DPPA
violates the Tenth Amendment, and to exclude consideration of Section 5
of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis to sustain the validity of the DPPA.
Resp. Mem. 15-16. The government does not rely in this Court on Section
5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for the DPPA, and the certiorari
petition does not seek review of the aspect of the court of appeals' decision
rejecting the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for the DPPA (see Pet. App.
22a-26a). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to restate the question presented
in the manner suggested by respondents.
Respectfully submitted.
SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
APRIL 1999