MINNESOTA NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION, INC., CROSS-APPELLANT V. ANTHONY
M. FRANK, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.

   No. 87-1943

   In the Supreme Court of the United States

   October Term, 1988

   On Cross-Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota

   Memorandum for the Cross-Appellees

   The Minnesota Newspaper Association, Inc., /1/ has taken a
cross-appeal from the district court's judgment upholding as a valid
regulation of commercial speech the restriction in 18 U.S.C. 1302 on
the mailing of lottery advertisements.  In No. 87-1956, we have
docketed an appeal from another aspect of the same district court,
judgment, holding facially unconstitutional an associated prohibition
in 18 U.S.C. 1302 on the use of the mails to distribute lottery prize
lists.  87-1956 J.S. App. 21a-22a.  For the reasons given in our
jurisdictional statement in No. 87-1956, we believe that the district
court correctly held that the prohibition in Section 1302 on the
mailing of lottery-related advertisements is constitutional under
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557
(1980), and Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs. v. Tourism Co., 478 U.S.
328 (1986).  Nonetheless, we agree with cross-appellant that the
question presented in its cross-appellant that the question presented
in its cross-appeal also merits plenary review by this Court.  As we
explained in our jurisdictional statement in No. 87-1956, the
advertisement and prize list clauses in Section 1302 should be read in
a complementary manner, and both clauses are a reasonable regulation
of commercial speech.  Because of the close relationship between the
two clauses, the Court will be in the best position to construe the
scope of the prize list clause and to determine its constitutionality
if the questions concerning the scope and constitutionality of the
advertisement clause are also before the Court.  Accordingly, the
Court should note probable jurisdiction over this appeal and
consolidate it with our appeal in No. 87-1956 in order fully to
consider the proper interpretation and constitutionality of the
statute as a whole.

   Respectfully submitted.

   CHARLES FRIED

      Solicitor General

   JULY 1988

   /1/ The government has taken an appeal from the district court's
judgment in No. 87-1956.  The appeal docketed by the Minnesota
Newspaper Association, Inc., is miscaptioned;  the Association, not
the Postmaster General, should be the appellant.  We therefore will
refer to the Association as the cross-appellant in order to avoid
confusion with the appeal we have taken in No. 87-1956.