MAIN	cases	docket	decisions	orders	briefs	rules	guides	calendar
No. 98-1464: Reno v. Condon

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 toreview the court of appeals' decision holding the Driver's Privacy ProtectionAct of 1994 (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, unconstitutional. Resp. Mem. 1-2,8. Specifically, respondents point out that "[t]he four circuits inwhich the issue has arisen are evenly split in their results," andthey submit that "[c]learly, a decision of this Court is necessaryto 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 certioraripetition, however, to limit the issue before the Court to whether the DPPAviolates the Tenth Amendment, and to exclude consideration of Section 5of 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 Section5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for the DPPA, and the certioraripetition does not seek review of the aspect of the court of appeals' decisionrejecting the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for the DPPA (see Pet. App.22a-26a). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to restate the question presentedin the manner suggested by respondents.

Respectfully submitted.

SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General


APRIL 1999