IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST

7m ago
11 Views
0 Downloads
544.20 KB
20 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : n/a
Upload by : Louie Bolen
Transcription

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 1Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028No. 19-1835IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUITNEW HAMPSHIRE LOTTERY COMMISSION; NEOPOLLARDINTERACTIVE LLC; POLLARD BANKNOTE LIMITED,Plaintiffs-Appellees,WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE; UNITED STATES,Defendants-Appellants.On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the District of New Hampshire, No. 19-cv-163-PBDistrict Judge Paul BarbadoroBRIEF OF NEW JERSEY IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCEGURBIR S. GREWALAttorney General of New JerseyAttorney for Amicus CuriaeState of New JerseyGLENN J. MORAMARCOAssistant Attorney GeneralCounsel of RecordJOHN T. PASSANTEDeputy Attorney GeneralNew Jersey Attorney General’s OfficeRichard J. Hughes Justice Complex25 Market StreetTrenton, NJ 08625-0080Phone: [email protected]

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 2Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028TABLE OF CONTENTSINTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .1SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .2ARGUMENT .3The DOJ’s Reinterpretation Of The Wire Act Failed Adequately To AccountFor The Interests Of New Jersey And Other States That Created WellRegulated Internet Gambling Industries In Reliance On The 2011 Opinion. . 3A. New Jersey Has Made A Substantial Investment In Its State-SanctionedAnd Regulated iGaming Industry In Direct Reliance Upon The DOJ’sPrior Authorization. .5B. In Reversing Itself, The DOJ Did Not Properly Weigh The RelianceInterests That Resulted From The 2011 Opinion. .11CONCLUSION .15i

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 3Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCasesDoe v. Anrig, 728 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1984) .4Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S.Ct. 2117, 2120 (2016) .4F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009) .4Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. E.P.A., 829 F.3d 710, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .12New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Barr, 386 F.Supp.3d 132,142 (D.N.H. 2019) .3Puerto Rico Ports Authority v. Umpierre-Solares, 456 F.3d 220,224 (1st Cir. 2006) .4Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 741 (1996).4Statutes18 U.S.C. § 1084 .131 U.S.C. §§ 3163 through 3167 .11New Jersey P.L.2013, c. 27, § 1, eff. Feb. 26, 2013, operative Nov. 21, 2013 .5Other AuthoritiesReconsidering Whether the Wire Act Applies to Non-SportsGambling, 42 Op. O.L.C. (2018) .13Memo to U.S. Attorneys, from Rod A. Rosenstein, Dep. Att’y Gen.,Re: Applicability of the Wire Act to Non-Sports Gambling (Jan. 15, 2019) .9Whether Proposals by Illinois and New York to Use the Internet andOut-of-State Transaction Processors to Sell Lottery Tickets to In-StateAdults Violate the Wire Act, 35 Op. O.L.C. (2011) .5RulesN.J.A.C. 13:69O-1.1 to -3.1 .6N.J.A.C. 13:69O-1.2(l)(14)(ix) .11ii

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 4Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAEThe State of New Jersey respectfully submits this brief amicus curiae insupport of the Appellees. Like the Appellees, New Jersey asks the Court to affirmthe District Court’s opinion declaring unlawful the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”)2018 Opinion changing its interpretation of the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (“theAct” or “the Statute”). The DOJ’s 2018 Opinion reversed its 2011 Opinion, whichstated the Wire Act applies solely to the use of the wires for sports-related gambling.New Jersey submits this brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a)(2) so that this Courtcan more fully consider the tremendous impact that its decision will have on States,businesses, and people both inside and outside of New Hampshire. In New Jersey’scase, in addition to having invested in a lottery as New Hampshire has done, NewJersey also developed a thriving non-sports-related legal Internet gaming industry(“iGaming”) in response to the DOJ’s 2011 express authorization of such Internetgambling. This burgeoning iGaming industry annually yields hundreds of millionsof dollars in private revenue and tens of millions of dollars to New Jersey’s economyin State taxes and fees. The District Court’s correct interpretation of the Wire Acthas allowed New Jersey’s iGaming industry to continue, staving off the potentialloss of significant revenue for the State and thousands of jobs for its residents.1

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 5Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTThis Court should affirm the District Court’s holding that the Wire Act’sprohibitions on interstate gambling apply only to sports-related betting and contests.The District Court’s analysis of the statutory text and legislative history of the WireAct provides reason alone for this Court to affirm. However, there is an additionalreason why this Court should affirm the well-reasoned decision below. TheDepartment of Justice’s 2018 Opinion reinterpreting the Wire Act can be struckdown because the DOJ failed adequately to consider the very significant relianceinterests that resulted from the decisions of multiple States that developed and builtwell-regulated, state-sanctioned gambling industries in reliance on DOJ’s previous2011 Opinion.New Jersey’s Internet gaming industry, in particular, has generated hundredsof millions of dollars in wages and thousands of new jobs in the State. Over a threeyear period, iGaming has produced over 100 million in revenue for the State, andthe industry is growing at a 27 percent annual rate. All of this was accomplishedonly after New Jersey invested heavily in creating iGaming operations in relianceon the 2011 Opinion. The DOJ’s reinterpretation of the Wire Act should be rejectednot only because its statutory arguments are flawed, but also because its change ofposition ignores the harms that would result from reasonable actions taken by theStates in reliance on DOJ’s 2011 Opinion.2

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 6Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028ARGUMENTThe DOJ’s Reinterpretation Of The Wire Act Failed Adequately To AccountFor The Interests Of New Jersey And Other States That Created WellRegulated Internet Gambling Industries In Reliance On The 2011 Opinion.The District Court analyzed the plain language of the Wire Act, as well as itslegislative history and other contextual evidence, and concluded that the DOJ’s 2011Opinion correctly held that the prohibitions on interstate betting contained in theWire Act apply only to bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest. The DistrictCourt’s statutory analysis of the Wire Act is doubtless correct and is reason enoughfor this Court to affirm the decision below.However, there is an additional argument, which the District Court discussedonly briefly, that provides an important additional basis to affirm. Even if the WireAct could plausibly be read as applying beyond sports betting, which it cannot, theDOJ’s change of position should nevertheless be reversed because of the significantreliance interests that have arisen throughout the States and their legal gamblingindustries as a result of the 2011 Opinion.1 This Court may affirm the District’sCourt’s opinion for any reason supported by the record below. Puerto Rico PortsThe District Court acknowledged the Appellees’ reliance interests, but that wasnot a focus of its legal analysis. See New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. Barr,386 F.Supp.3d 132, 142 (D.N.H. 2019) (“After operating for years in reliance onOLC guidance that their conduct was not subject to the Wire Act, the plaintiffshave had to confront a sudden about-face by the Department of Justice.”).13

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 7Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028Authority v. Umpierre-Solares, 456 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 2006); Doe v. Anrig, 728F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1984).The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an agency’s statutoryinterpretation must be rejected under the APA if it reverses a prior interpretation bythe same agency without adequately accounting for reasonable reliance interests thathave accrued in the interim. See, e.g., F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009) (holding that an agency must “provide a more detailedjustification” for a reversal “when its prior policy has engendered serious relianceinterests that must be taken into account,” adding “[i]t would be arbitrary andcapricious to ignore such matters”); Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517U.S. 735, 741 (1996) (“Sudden and unexplained change, or change that does nottake account of legitimate reliance on prior interpretation, may be arbitrary,capricious [or] an abuse of discretion”) (citation and quotation marks omitted);Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S.Ct. 2117, 2120 (2016) (vacating agencyinterpretation of statute which reversed prior position because, “[i]n light of theserious reliance interests at stake, the Department’s conclusory statements do notsuffice to explain its decision”). As outlined in the remainder of this subsection, theDOJ’s 2018 Reinterpretation, however, falls far short of adequately taking relianceinterests into account.4

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 8Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028A. New Jersey Has Made A Substantial Investment In Its StateSanctioned And Regulated iGaming Industry In Direct Reliance UponThe DOJ’s Prior Authorization.In December 2011, in response to a request for guidance from two States,DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) undertook a thorough and persuasiveanalysis of the Wire Act, examining its text and legislative history and concludingthat it prohibits only sports-related Internet gambling. See Whether Proposals byIllinois and New York to Use the Internet and Out-of-State Transaction Processorsto Sell Lottery Tickets to In-State Adults Violate the Wire Act, 35 Op. O.L.C. (2011)(“2011 Opinion”). As a result, the OLC determined that regulation of non-sportsrelated Internet gambling was a matter that Congress left to each State in that State’ssovereign capacity.As of 2011, New Jersey was one of many states that already had their ownlotteries, including multistate games like Powerball and Mega Millions. But after2011, and as a direct result of the 2011 Opinion, some states began to legalize,regulate, and invest heavily in internet gambling. New Jersey entered this market in2013, at which time it began permitting non-sports-related games that were playedin Atlantic City’s casinos, such as poker, roulette, and craps, to be offered viaiGaming websites. See P.L.2013, c. 27, § 1, eff. Feb. 26, 2013, operative Nov. 21,2013.5

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 9Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028Ensuring that legalized iGaming would be operated safely and consistentlywith sound public policy required a major investment of time and resources. In NewJersey, the State’s Division of Gaming Enforcement (“DGE”) was tasked withdeveloping and implementing regulations, technical standards, software, testingapparatuses, geolocation technology to ensure that those participating in wageringare physically in the State, Social Security number and address verificationsystems to prevent underage gaming, and numerous other policies and procedures.To construct this regulatory and technical framework, DGE assembled a team ofaccountants, investigators, engineers, and attorneys; contracted the services of a firmwith pertinent regulatory experience; and consulted with regulators, operators, andcontent providers from other countries and States with iGaming industries. DGE thuspromulgated a comprehensive and stringent regulatory framework for the newindustry. See N.J.A.C 13:69O-1.1 to -3.1.New Jersey also worked closely with private operators, their ancillarypartners, and other vendors. New Jersey undertook extensive background checks ofsuch industry participants to ensure that those involved in iGaming do not havedisqualifying criminal histories and that they have appropriate financial security.DGE then inspected and authorized appropriate private and public Internet platformsfor launch. In addition, New Jersey also made significant investments to develop anddeploy systems to prevent fraud. Thus, for example, DGE created and implemented6

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 10Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028protocols for continuous monitoring of iGaming systems, operators, and platformproviders, including technical monitoring tools that enable it to track every iGamingtransaction and wager and to identify anomalies indicative of online cheating orplayer fraud. New Jersey also developed and installed mechanisms to help find andcontrol problem-gaming. This entailed working with vendors and operators todevelop systems to identify and report potential problem gamblers, as well asensuring that all iGaming sites allow players to set deposit limits, loss limits, andtime limits on their sessions, as well as provide an option for a minimum 72-hour“cooling off” period or self-exclusion for up to five years from iGaming.Because of these and other safeguards, the implementation of iGamingrequired significant upfront capital investments in facilities, equipment, andtechnology by the State, operators, and ancillary companies, as well as immensetime, effort, and resources, requiring countless hours of work. Capital investments,although not comprehensively computed, are estimated to be in the tens of millionsof dollars.New Jersey’s iGaming industry has proven to be enormously successful.Approximately 59 companies have applied as casino service industry enterprises toconduct Internet gaming, 48 companies have applied for licenses to conductiGaming as ancillary casino service industry enterprises, and approximately 573vendors have filed with the State to conduct iGaming-related business. Many of7

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 11Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028these enterprises and vendors have established places of business in New Jerseyspecifically to take part in this new industry, thus providing employment to manyNew Jerseyans. All told, since its inception in 2013, iGaming is estimated to havedirectly and indirectly created 3,374 jobs and paid 218.9 million in wages toemployees in New Jersey.The industry has also brought significant resources to private companies andpublic entities, generating approximately 998.3 million in total sales from 2013through 2016. Over the same three-year period, iGaming produced 124.4 millionin tax revenue to the State and local governments. And from November 2013 to thepresent, DGE has collected a total of 35 million in licensing and other fees.Moreover, it appears that New Jersey’s iGaming industry has not yet reached its fullpotential, as revenue has grown at the rate of 27% annually since 2013.Legalized iGaming also provides a safe and secure form of entertainment.These games are carefully regulated and offered with the assurance of trusted brandsand strong player protections, as noted above. This stands in stark contrast to therisks and dangers of off-shore Internet gambling sites that proliferated before 2013and remain problematic today. Indeed, U.S. citizens spent an estimated 5.9 billionon such unregulated sites in 2008 alone. In short, New Jersey recognized that peopleare going to gamble via the Internet and made the reasoned policy decision that, bylegalizing and regulating the practice, it could protect players against fraud and theft8

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 12Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028while redirecting the proceeds towards legitimate in-State industries and State andlocal governments, to the ultimate benefit of New Jersey’s residents.If the District Court’s judgment is reversed, the 2018 Reinterpretation, and theDOJ Memo which adopts it for enforcement of the Wire Act nationwide, has thepotential to end New Jersey’s iGaming industry.2 Some aspects of the industry arespecifically designed to operate in multiple states. For example, New Jersey,Delaware, and Nevada have entered into a multi-state agreement to provide for andregulate Internet poker among people in each State. This may be unlawful under the2018 Reinterpretation. In addition, other aspects of New Jersey’s iGaming industryinvolve interstate use of the wires, notwithstanding the best efforts of the regulators,operators, and participants. It is simply the nature of the Internet that even purelyintrastate transactions may travel through channels that cross state lines. Forexample, when an individual in New Jersey plays an Internet casino game hosted byan Atlantic City casino, the information transmitted for gameplay or payment,whether from a bank or credit card company, may well travel through servers in2The day after the OLC published its 2018 Reinterpretation, the Deputy AttorneyGeneral issued a memorandum to all United States Attorneys, Assistant AttorneysGeneral, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, decreeing that the2018 Reinterpretation was the DOJ’s official position on the meaning of the WireAct, and directing federal law enforcement authorities to adhere to that interpretationin their investigative and prosecutorial capacities. See Memo to U.S. Attorneys, fromRod A. Rosenstein, Dep. Att’y Gen., Re: Applicability of the Wire Act to Non-SportsGambling (Jan. 15, 2019) (“DOJ Memo”).9

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 13Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028States other than New Jersey, as the Internet is designed to route such informationby the fastest method possible, without regard to geographical boundaries. There isevery reason to believe that the DOJ will attempt to prosecute those involved in suchtransactions in light of the 2018 Reinterpretation and the DOJ Memo. And that threatalone, regardless of the merit of such a prosecution, will devastate New Jersey’siGaming industry, as most, if not all, operators and vendors could and would not riskcriminal prosecution.As a result, the 2018 Reinterpretation, if upheld, could force New Jersey toshutter its iGaming industry, lest the operators and supporting partners risk federalfelony prosecution, as well as civil liability. If that were to transpire, the financialloss to the State would be substantial. New Jersey’s State government would lose anestimated 60 million in tax revenue a year; New Jersey’s DGE would lose anestimated 6.7 million in fees annually; at least 300 jobs would disappear;companies that have established offices in New Jersey for the operation of onlinegaming would shut down, with additional job losses resulting; and the in-Stateprivate sector would lose their iGaming business to illegal offshore sites. This is inaddition to the immense waste of time and resources that went into building theindustry, which would have been for naught. Both the actual and the opportunitycosts of this wasted effort, taken in good faith reliance upon DOJ’s earlier position,would be staggering. In sum, if the 2018 Reinterpretation and DOJ Memo are10

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 14Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028permitted to stand and these things come to pass, it would mean a tremendous publicand private loss and a true injustice.B. In Reversing Itself, The DOJ Did Not Properly Weigh The RelianceInterests That Resulted From The 2011 Opinion.There can be no question but that the 2011 Opinion gave rise to relianceinterests, exemplified by New Jersey’s efforts to develop and maintain its iGamingindustry.3 As detailed above, the State’s institution of iGaming after 2011 entailedthe creation of regulatory standards, new software and technology, and oversightpolicies and procedures. These efforts were necessary to satisfy multiple objectives,including ensuring lawfulness under the Wire Act and other federal statutes;4providing player protection against problem gaming, theft and fraud; and promotingtechnical workability, ease of use, and profitability. Accordingly, New Jerseylearned about and mastered the regulation of an entire industry, and hired and trainedNew Jersey also reasonably relied on Congress’ rejection of proposed amendmentsto the Wire Act in 2015 and 2016. As previously noted, supra, those amendmentswere brought by opponents of Internet gambling for the express purpose ofreversing the 2011 Opinion. That Congress declined to do so signaled support forthe 2011 Opinion, which New Jersey properly understood to also support thelawfulness of its iGaming industry.34See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 13:69O-1.2(l)(14)(ix) (requiring the patron protection page tocontain “Notification of Federal prohibitions and restrictions regarding Internetgaming, specifically, any limitations upon Internet gaming as set forth in 18 U.S.C.§§ 1084 et seq. (The Wire Act) and 31 U.S.C. §§ 3163 through 3167 (UIEGA).”).11

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 15Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028the requisite staff and/or private vendors. Such efforts entailed many millions ofdollars’ worth of capital and person-power expenditures over a multi-year period.As a result, New Jersey has a reasonable, investment-backed expectations inits iGaming industry. And, as previously discussed, those expectations have beenmet: iGaming now generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with thesefunds contributing to the public coffer and employee wages, in addition to privaterevenues. Over the past several years, New Jersey has budgeted and planned for acontinuing return on its investment, as have operators, vendors, and new employeesof iGaming. Thus, were the iGaming industry to close abruptly, New Jersey wouldsuffer a devastating setback. The State would lose: funding from taxes and fees;hundreds of jobs for its citizens; the secondary gains to its economy from thedevelopment of new in-state businesses and jobs; and, of course, years’ worth ofpublic and private resources that could have been expended on any number of otherprojects.Under these circumstances, DOJ was required to “take account of [NewJersey’s and other states’] legitimate reliance on [its] prior interpretation,” Smiley,517 U.S. at 741, and “provide a more detailed justification” for the 2018Reinterpretation than the 2011 Opinion, Fox Television, 556 U.S. at 515-16. As thenJudge Kavanaugh wrote in Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. E.P.A., an agency seeking toreverse a prior decision in the face of reliance-related losses “must determine that12

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 16Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028the benefits of its desired action outweigh those costs.” 829 F.3d 710, 736 (D.C. Cir.2016) (Kavanaugh, J. dissenting) (citation, quotation marks, and modificationomitted). In the 2018 Reinterpretation, DOJ did none of that. Instead, the 2018Reinterpretation acknowledged only the reliance interests of States that began sellinglottery tickets via the Internet after the 2011 Opinion, and it did that only in passing.See Reconsidering Whether the Wire Act Applies to Non-Sports Gambling, 42 Op.O.L.C. (2018) (“2018 Reinterpretation”) at 22. DOJ thus failed to recognize, in anyway, the interests of New Jersey or any other states with Internet gamblingindustries, which are different both in scope and in kind from Internet lottery sales.DOJ’s failure to even recognize the magnitude of this reliance interest and the threatits 2018 Reinterpretation poses to entire industries not only bespeaks arbitrarygovernance, but, under these principles, establishes the invalidity of its decision.Further, DOJ’s treatment of even the incomplete reliance interest that itrecognized – “in light of our conclusion about the plain language of the statute, wedo not believe that such reliance interests are sufficient to justify continuedadherence to the 2011 opinion,” 2018 Reinterpretation at 22-23 – is inadequatelyreasoned. Far from weighing the costs of its reversal, or explaining any purportedinadequacy with its 2011 policy, DOJ summarily rejected the reliance interests atstake as “not . . . sufficient.” But that, of course, is precisely the sort of “conclusorystatement[]” that the Supreme Court held inadequate in Encino Motorcars. 136 S.Ct.13

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 17Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028at 2120 (“[i]n light of the serious reliance interests at stake, the Department’sconclusory statements do not suffice to explain its decision. This lack of reasonedexplication for a regulation that is inconsistent with the Department’s longstandingearlier position results in a rule that cannot carry the force of law.”) (citationomitted). Nor is the DOJ’s bare claim in 2018 that the Statute’s text is so clear as tomerit reversal of the 2011 Opinion sufficiently credible or persuasive to overcomethe reliance interests at stake, particularly given its own contrary interpretation justa few years earlier. Therefore, in addition to the reasons supplied by the DistrictCourt, and the arguments raised in Appellees’ Brief, the 2018 OLC Reinterpretationwas properly rejected by the District Court because it failed to adequately considerthe reliance interests engendered by the 2011 Opinion.14

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 18Date Filed: 03/04/2020CONCLUSIONThis Court should affirm the judgment of the District Court.Respectfully Submitted,GURBIR S. GREWALAttorney General of New Jersey/s/ Glenn J. MoramarcoGLENN J. MORAMARCOAssistant Attorney GeneralJOHN T. PASSANTEDeputy Attorney General15Entry ID: 6322028

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 19Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEPursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(G) and Fed. R. App. P. 32(g)(l), theundersigned hereby certifies that this brief complies with the type-volumelimitations of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i) and Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5):1. This brief contains 3,279 words, excluding the portions exempted by Fed.R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable.2. This brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface usingMicrosoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman type, which complieswith Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6)./s/ Glenn J. MoramarcoGLENN J. MORAMARCOAssistant Attorney General16

Case: 19-1835Document: 00117560473Page: 20Date Filed: 03/04/2020Entry ID: 6322028CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that on March 4, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing withthe Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuitusing the appellate CM/ECF system. Counsel for all parties are registered CM/ECFusers and will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system./s/ Glenn J. MoramarcoGLENN J. MORAMARCOAssistant Attorney General17

Mar 06, 2020 · Attorney General of New Jersey Assistant Attorney General Counsel of Record Attorney for Amicus Curiae JOHN T. PASSANTE State of New Jersey Deputy Attorney General New Jersey Attorney General’s Office Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street Trenton, NJ 086