132 Cong. Rec. H. 9371 (daily ed. Oct. 7, 1986)... 132 Cong. Rec. S. 16702 (daily ed. Oct. 16, 1986).... 131 Cong. Rec. S. 11885 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 1985)... Michigan Const., Art. IX § 1..... .23 .24 24 .20 M.C.L.A. vol. 3 § 14.131 (Mich. Compiled Laws Annotated)...............20 M.C.L.A. vol. 3 § 14.131 (Mich. Compiled Laws Annotated).......20 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. 18 U.S.C. § 2341, et seq. .1, 5, 6,9, 12 25 ARTICLES The Public Report of the Sixth Statewide Grand Jury of Florida, (1985)... .26 ABT Assoc., Inc., Unreported Taxable Income From Selected Illegal .18 .3 Ross, How Lawless Are Big Companies, Fortune, Dec. 1, 1980.....23 The New Tax Law IX (Price Water House 1986)..... .25 World Almanac and Book of Facts: 1986 (Newspaper Enterprise .25 This brief is submitted on behalf of the State of Arizona and other interested States.1 In 1970, Congress enacted the Organized Crime Control Act, Title IX of which is known as "RICO." 84 Stat. 923 (1970) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.) Congress designed the 1970 Act to "strengthen[] the legal tools in the 1. The States that join in this brief will be noted in separate motion to be filed with this brief. evidence-gathering process, ...[to] establish[] new penal prohibitions, and new remedies ... [to] provide[] enhanced sanctions and Id. ...." Among other things, Congress was concerned about "fraud and corruption." Id. at 922. Congress, too, found that "the sanctions and remedies available" under the law then current were "unnecessarily limited in scope and impact." Id. at 923. Included in the new remedies in the 18 1970 Act were civil claims for treble damages and other relief for "person[s] injured" in their "business or property." U.S.C. 1964(c). Similarly, Since 1970, federal prosecutors have successfully used criminal RICO to attack a variety of forms of governmental corruption at the State and local level. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 1001 (6th Cir. 1982) (governor's office), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072 (1982); United States v. Robinson, 763 F.2d 778, 780 (6th Cir. 1985) (state liquor commission); United States v. Davis, 707 F.2d 880, 881-82 (6th Cir. 1983) (sheriff's office). various governmental victims at the State and local level have sought civil relief. See, e.g., Comm'n of Pa. v. Cianfrani, 600 F.Supp. 1364, 1368-69 (E.D. Pa. 1985); State of Md. v Buzz Berg Wrecking Co., Inc., 496 F.Supp. 245, 247 (D.Md. 1980); State of Okla. ex rel Dep't. of Human Services v. Children's Shelter, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 867 (W.D. Okla. 1985); Alcorn County, Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, Inc., 731 F.2d 1160, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1984); Municipality of Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd., 547 F.Supp. 633, 636-37 (D. Alaska 1982). See also N.Y. Times, Dec. 12, 1986, at 12, col 2 (N.Y.C. suing for $14 million under RICO in parking meter burThe district court's decision in this appeal eau scandal). that the State of Michigan may not initiate this civil RICO suit to vindicate it victimization in the area of tax fraud, however, threatens to eviscerate this important anti-corruption remedy for governmental units. Amici view this development as ominous, particularly in a period of increasing governmental expenditures at the State and local level, as the federal goverment plays a smaller role in social welfare programs, and in a period of heightened awareness of fraud against the government. "Resolution of the pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly is for" the legislative branch. United States v. Rodgers, 460 U.S. 475, 483 (1984). "[T]he Judiciary may not circumscribe a right which Congress has conferred because of any disagreement it might have with Congress about the wisdom of creating so expansive a liability." Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 748 (1975). See also, R. Jackson, The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy, 40 (Vintage ed. 1941) ("unwelcome legislative [actions undermined by] 'interpretation' [that] eviscerate[s] them.). Accordingly, Amici urge this Court to set its hand against this unconstitutional encroachment of article I legislative power by an article II court.2 .... 2. Four basic assumptions are integral to any principled effort to interpret a statute. F. Dickerson, The Interpretation and Applications of Statutes 7-12 (1975): (1) legisla STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUE For the full statement of facts, course of the legal pro ceedings below, and the relevent constitutional and statutory materials, the Court is respectfully directed to the briefs of the parties. Jerry Fawaz, the Defendant-Appellee, (Fawaz), doing business as West Seven Mile Service and Froggy's Fill-Up, footnote 2 continued tive supremacy within the constitutional framework (U.S. Const. art. I, § 1); (2) the use of the statutory vehicle to exercise that supremacy; (3) reliance on accepted means of communication; and (4) reasonable availability of the statutory vehicle to those to be governed by it, not only its text, but any other part of its legislative context that serves to give it meaning. See also, L. Hand, "The Contribution of an Independent Judiciary, in The Spirit of Liberty 119-20 (I. Dilliard ed., Vintage ed. 1959): .... 'Enacted law[s]' ... [are] ordinarily a compromise future settlements and ... upsets the whole More than 100 years ago, the Supreme Court noted, "It is easy, by very ingenious and astute construction, to evade the force of almost any statute, where a court is so disposed .. [By such] a construction [it is possible to] annul [it] and render[] it superfluous and useless." Pillow v Roberts, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 472, 476 (1851) (Grier, J.) Such an approach to statutory construction, however, carries with it a heavy price. After a lifetime of study of the law, Dean Roscoe Pound concluded that such construction (1) "tend[ed] to bring the law into disrespect; (2) ... subject[ed] the courts to political pressure; [and] (3) invite[d] an arbitrary personal element in judicial administration." 3 Jurisprudence 488 (1959). It threatened, he found, to make "laws ... worth little" and to "break down" the "legal order" itself. Id. at 490. Its effect was seen at the polls in the last election. "Voters in 3 States Reject Chief Justices," Nat'l. L.J., Nov. 17, 1986, at 3, col. 1. ... |