Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
10-3165-cv10-3191-cv10-3213-cv
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
RED EARTH LLC, d/b/a SENECA SMOKESHOP, AARON J. PIERCE,SENECA FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ERIC H. HOLDER, in his official capacity asAttorney General of the United States, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, JOHN E. POTTER, in his official capacity as Postmaster General andChief Executive Officer of the United States Postal Service, UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OPENING BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES
[Counsel Listed On Following Page]
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 1 09/28/2010 114238 74
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES
TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, Jr. United States Attorney MARK B. STERN
ALISA B. KLEIN MICHAEL P. ABATE
(202) 616-8209 Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7318
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 2 09/28/2010 114238 74
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. ....................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. ............................................................................ 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................................................. 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS. ...................................................................................... 5
I. Statutory Background........................................................................... 5
A. State and local excise taxes curb tobacco use, particularly underage use.. ......................................................... 5
B. The PACT Act addresses the problems presentedby remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco................. 7
II. Factual Background............................................................................ 12
III. District Court Proceedings. ................................................................ 14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ............................................................................. 16
STANDARD OF REVIEW. ................................................................................... 18
ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................... 18
I. Plaintiffs Have No Likelihood Of Success On The Merits. . ............. 19
A. The PACT Act's Requirement That State AndLocal Taxes Be Paid In Advance Of Delivery Does Not Violate Due Process................................................. 19
B. The District Court Offered No Basis for Enjoining The PACT Act Provisions That Require Compliance With Laws ThatGovern The Sale and Distribution Of Cigarettes.. ................... 35
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 3 09/28/2010 114238 74
II. The Balance Of Equities And The Public Interest Require That The Preliminary Injunction Be Vacated.. ..................... 39
CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 43
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)(7)(c)OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-ii-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 4 09/28/2010 114238 74
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page
Almontaser v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ.,519 F.3d 505 (2d Cir. 2008). ............................................................................. 18
Brown & Williamson v. Pataki,320 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2003). ................................................................... 6, 36, 39
Busch v. Buchman, Buchman & O’Brien, Law Firm,11 F.3d 1255 (5th Cir. 1994). ............................................................................ 27
Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC,571 F. Supp. 2d 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). .............................................................. 32
Chloe v Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC,__ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3035495 (2d Cir. 2010). ........................................... 17, 32
Consumer Mail Order Ass’n of America v. McGrath,94 F. Supp. 705 (D.D.C. 1950), aff'd, 340 U.S. 925 (1951). ............................. 26
Department of Tax. & Fin. of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.,512 U.S. 61 (1994)........................................................................... 11, 39, 40, 41
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,529 U.S. 120 (2000)......................................................................................... 5, 6
Gordon v. Holder,No. 10-1092-HHK (D.D.C.), appeal pending, No. 10-5227 (D.C. Cir.). .... 13, 31
Gordon v. Holder,No. 10-5227 (D.C. Cir.). .................................................................................... 37
Grand River Enterprise Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor,481 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2007). ............................................................................... 37
-iii-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 5 09/28/2010 114238 74
Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York,130 S. Ct. 983 (2010). .................................................................................... 8, 19
Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC,__ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3547647 (7th Cir. Sept. 14, 2010). ............... 17, 32, 33, 36
International Shoe Co. v. Washington,326 U.S. 310 (1945)..................................................................................... 27, 28
James Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co.,242 U.S. 311 (1917)........................................................................................... 25
Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.,299 U.S. 334 (1937)........................................................................................... 25
Lorillard Tobacco Corp. v. Reilly,533 U.S. 525 (2001)........................................................................................... 36
In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litigation,334 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2003). ............................................................................. 27
Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue,553 U.S. 16 (2008)....................................................................................... 22, 29
Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes,425 U.S. 463 (1976)............................................................................... 11, 39, 40
New York v. Smoke-Spirits.com, Inc.,541 F.3d 425 (2d Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds by Hemi GroupLLC v. City of New York, 130 S.Ct. 983 (2010)................................................... 9
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla.,498 U.S. 505 (1991)........................................................................................... 40
Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., Ltd.,521 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008). ............................................................................. 27
-iv-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 6 09/28/2010 114238 74
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,504 U.S. 298 (1992)............................................................. 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Red Earth LLC et al. v. United States et al.,__ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 3061103 (W.D.N.Y. July 30, 2010). ..................... 2
SEC v. Bilzerian,378 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2004). ........................................................................ 27
State v. Maybee,224 P.3d 1109 (Idaho 2010). ............................................................................. 36
United States v. Brewer,528 F.2d 492 (4th Cir. 1975). .............................................................................. 9
United States v. DeFiore,720 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1983). ............................................................................... 9
United States v. Melvin,544 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1977). .............................................................................. 9
Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Repub. Party,552 U.S. 442 (2008)........................................................................................... 34
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation,447 U.S. 134 (1980)......................................................................... 30, 39, 40, 41
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,129 S. Ct. 365 (2008). ........................................................................................ 18
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)................................................................... 33
Statutes:
7 U.S.C. § 1571....................................................................................................... 24
7 U.S.C. § 1573....................................................................................................... 24
-v-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 7 09/28/2010 114238 74
15 U.S.C. § 375 Note. ................................................... 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 22, 38, 39
15 U.S.C. § 376a(1). ........................................................................................... 4, 10
15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3). ..................................................................................... 10, 35
15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3)-(4). ............................................................... 4, 10, 15, 19, 22
15 U.S.C. § 376a(b). ........................................................................................... 4, 10
15 U.S.C. § 376a(b)(4)............................................................................................ 38
15 U.S.C. § 376a(c)............................................................................................. 4, 10
15 U.S.C. § 376a(d). ......................................................................... 3, 10, 15, 19, 22
15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)............................................................................................. 4, 10
15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(5)(C). ..................................................................................... 36
15 U.S.C. § 377................................................................................................... 4, 10
15 U.S.C. § 378................................................................................................... 4, 10
18 U.S.C. § 842(c). ................................................................................................. 24
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2). ............................................................................................ 23
18 U.S.C. § 1716E. ....................................................................................... 4, 10, 15
18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). ............................................................................................... 24
18 U.S.C. § 2342(a). ............................................................................................... 24
18 U.S.C. §§ 2341-2346. ........................................................................................ 10
18 U.S.C. § 2343(c)(1)............................................................................................ 10
-vi-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 8 09/28/2010 114238 74
21 U.S.C. § 387 Note. ............................................................................................... 6
21 U.S.C. § 831(b). ................................................................................................. 24
26 U.S.C. § 5701(b). ................................................................................................. 7
26 U.S.C. § 5712....................................................................................................... 7
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).............................................................................................. 1
28 U.S.C. § 1331....................................................................................................... 1
31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(A). ....................................................................................... 24
Conn Gen. Stat. § 12-285c. ..................................................................................... 36
Idaho Code § 39-5704............................................................................................. 38
Idaho Code § 39-5710............................................................................................. 38
Idaho Code § 39-8403(1). ....................................................................................... 37
Idaho Code § 39-8403(3). ....................................................................................... 37
Ind. Code. § 24-3-5-4.5........................................................................................... 36
Md. Code. Ann. Business Reg. § 16-222................................................................ 36
Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009)............................................................... 7
Pub. L. No. 111-154, 124 Stat. 1087 (2010)......................................................... 1, 7
Legislative Materials:
Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2007, and the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2008: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism,and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 110 Cong. 50(May 1, 2008). ..................................................................................... 7, 8, 20, 21
-vii-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 9 09/28/2010 114238 74
Statement of Vice Admiral Richard H. Carmona, U.S. Surgeon General, reprinted at 155 Cong. Rec. S6000 (June 3, 2009). ............................................................ 5
Youth Smoking Prevention and State Revenue Enforcement Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of theH. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 119 (May 1, 2003). ........ 20, 22, 38, 39
Other Authorities:
Chaloupka et al., Policy Levers For the Control of Tobacco Consumption,90 Ky. L.J. 1009 (2002). .................................................................................... 21
Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), GAO-02-743, Internet Cigarette Sales: Giving ATF Investigative Authority May Improve Reporting and Enforcement (2002). ...................................................................................... 8, 19
Institute of Medicine, “Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation,” (2007)....................................................................................................... 6, 35, 38
Koh et al., Poverty, Socioeconomic Position, and Cancer Disparities: Global Challenges and Opportunities, 15 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y663 (2008).......................................................................................................... 21
March 9, 2010 Letter from National Association of Attorneys General to All Members of the United States Senate,http://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf/signons/PACT_Final.pdf. ......................... 8
President’s Cancer Panel, “Promoting Healthy Lifestyles,” (2007),http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp07rpt/pcp07rpt.pdf. ........................................................................................................ 6
Richard Carver, State Weighs Reintroduction of Tax Stamps for Cigarettes, Winston-Salem Journal, Feb. 2, 2010, http://www2.journalnow.com/ content/2010/feb/02/state-weighs-reintroduction-of-tax-stamps-for-ciga/. ....... 40
-viii-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 10 09/28/2010 114238 74
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The district court’s jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on
July 30, 2010. See JA 4-46. The government filed a timely notice of appeal on
August 6, 2010. See JA 300. Plaintiffs Red Earth and Seneca Free Trade
Association (“SFTA”) filed timely notices of cross-appeal on August 10, 2010 and
August 6, 2010, respectively. See JA 305, 309. This Court has appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
These cross-appeals arise out of constitutional challenges to provisions of
the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (“PACT”) Act, Pub. L. No. 111-154, 124
Stat. 1087 (2010). The government’s appeal presents the following questions:
1. Whether the district court erred in holding that the PACT Act’s
requirement that Internet and other remote sellers of cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco comply with the laws of the jurisdictions to which they deliver their
products, including tax laws, violates due process.
2. Whether the balance of equities and the public interest also require that
the preliminary injunction be vacated.
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 11 09/28/2010 114238 74
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The preliminary injunction before the Court was issued by Judge Richard
Arcara and is reported at Red Earth LLC et al. v. United States et al., __ F. Supp.
2d __, 2010 WL 3061103 (W.D.N.Y. July 30, 2010). See JA 4-46.
Plaintiff Aaron Pierce operates a business, Red Earth LLC, that sells
cigarettes via the Internet, telephone, and mail to customers across the country.
See Red Earth Compl. ¶ 6 (JA 70); Pierce Decl. ¶ 6 (JA 95). Red Earth’s principal
place of business is located on the territory of the Seneca Nation of Indians in
upstate New York. See Red Earth Compl. ¶ 5 (JA 70). Red Earth admits that it
does not pay state or local taxes on the cigarettes that it sells to customers
nationwide. See Red Earth Compl. ¶¶ 25, 29 (JA 79, 80). Red Earth declares that
“[s]hipment of tax-free cigarettes” is “an integral and important aspect of
plaintiffs’ business model, and allows plaintiffs to realize cost savings that result,
in part, in the lower prices plaintiffs’ customers pay for tobacco products.” Id.
¶ 29 (JA 80); see also Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 11-12 (JA 96-97) (describing plaintiff’s
business model).
Plaintiff Seneca Free Trade Association represents 141 tobacco retailers,
including Red Earth, that are located on Seneca Territory. See SFTA Compl. ¶ 6
(JA 102). SFTA alleges that 61 of the tobacco businesses it represents take orders
-2-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 12 09/28/2010 114238 74
only though the internet, telephone, or fax, and that 80 of the businesses have both
an internet/telephone/fax operation and a small brick-and-mortar store. See id.
¶ 48 (JA 111).
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of provisions of the PACT Act, a
federal statute that regulates Internet and other “remote” sales of cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco — i.e., sales that do not take place in person. In legislative
findings set out in the statute, Congress found that the majority of Internet and
other remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are made without payment
of state and local taxes, without compliance with existing federal registration and
reporting requirements, and without adequate precautions to prevent sales to
minors. Congress found that sales over the Internet and through mail, fax, or
phone orders make it cheaper and easier for children to obtain tobacco products;
that criminals and terrorist groups profit from trafficking in untaxed cigarettes; and
that billions of dollars of tax revenue are lost each year. See 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note
(Findings).
To address these problems, the PACT Act prohibits remote sales of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco unless the applicable state and local taxes are
paid in advance, see 15 U.S.C. § 376a(d), and requires remote sellers to comply
with the laws of the jurisdictions to which they deliver their products, including
-3-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 13 09/28/2010 114238 74
tax laws and laws relating to the distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco,
see id. § 376a(a)(3)-(4). In addition, the PACT Act makes it unlawful to deliver
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco through the U.S. mail, see 18 U.S.C. § 1716E;
imposes new federal registration, shipping, record-keeping, and age-verification
requirements, see id. §§ 376(a)(1), 376a(b), (c), (e); and established new penalties
and enforcement mechanisms, see, e.g., id. §§ 377, 378.
The PACT Act was signed into law on March 31, 2010, with the support of
major public health groups and all fifty states. Just days before it took effect, Red
Earth filed suit, challenging the constitutionality of PACT Act provisions and
seeking a preliminary injunction. See JA 69. SFTA filed a similar lawsuit, see
JA 101, and the actions were consolidated.
The district court entered temporary restraining orders and, on July 30,
2010, issued an order that granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for
a preliminary injunction. See JA 4-46. The court denied the motion to enjoin the
PACT Act provision that makes it unlawful to send cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco through the U.S. mail, finding it “beyond dispute that Congress has the
authority to completely ban those products from the mails.” JA 40. However, the
court enjoined the government from enforcing against plaintiffs the PACT Act
provisions that prohibit remote sales unless the state and local taxes are paid in
-4-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 14 09/28/2010 114238 74
advance and that require remote sellers to comply with the laws of the
jurisdictions to which their products are delivered. See JA 46. The district court
believed that these federal requirements violate the due process rights of sellers
that do not solicit out-of-state business via the Internet or through other means.
See JA 17-27.
Both sides appealed and sought emergency relief pending appeal. The
district court denied both motions. See JA 47-54. This Court denied emergency
relief and ordered expedited briefing and argument. See 9/8/2010 Order.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Statutory Background
A. State and local excise taxes curb tobacco use, particularly underage use.
“[T]obacco use, particularly among children and adolescents, poses perhaps
the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.” FDA v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 161 (2000). “Each year,
440,000 people die of diseases caused by smoking or other form of tobacco use —
that is about 20 percent of all deaths in our nation.” Statement of Vice Admiral
Richard H. Carmona, U.S. Surgeon General, reprinted at 155 Cong. Rec. S6000
(June 3, 2009). The “overwhelming majority of Americans who use tobacco
-5-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 15 09/28/2010 114238 74
products begin using such products while they are minors and become addicted to
the nicotine in those products before reaching the age of 18.” 21 U.S.C. § 387
Note, Finding 31. “Every day, approximately 4,000 children under age 18
experiment with cigarettes for the first time; another 1,500 become regular
smokers. Of those who become regular smokers, about half eventually will die
from a disease caused by tobacco use.” President’s Cancer Panel, “Promoting
Healthy Lifestyles,” at 64 (2007) (emphasis added).1
Before 2009, no federal agency had comprehensive authority to regulate
tobacco products. See Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 126. Responsibility to
address the crisis caused by tobacco use fell primarily to state and local
governments, which have relied in part on excise taxes to curb demand for tobacco
products. It is well established that “‘an increase in the price of cigarettes will
lead to a decrease in the demand of cigarettes.’” Brown & Williamson v. Pataki,
320 F.3d 200, 217 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Indeed, “raising tobacco
excise taxes is one of the most effective policies for reducing the use of tobacco.”
Institute of Medicine, “Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation,”
at 182 (2007) (“2007 IOM Report”). Studies show that minors are particularly
See 1 http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp07rpt/pcp07rpt.pdf (last visited Sept. 27, 2010).
-6-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 16 09/28/2010 114238 74
price-sensitive and that every 10% increase in real cigarette prices will reduce the
number of youth smokers by six or seven percent. See Prevent All Cigarette
Trafficking Act of 2007, and the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2008:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the
H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 110 Cong. 50, 52 (May 1, 2008) (“2008 Hearing”)
(Statement of Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids).
B. The PACT Act addresses the problems presented byremote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
The PACT Act forms part of Congress’s comprehensive regulation of
tobacco products. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of
2009, Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776, vests the Food and Drug Administration
with authority to regulate tobacco products and imposes new requirements and
restraints on the marketing of tobacco products. Congress separately raised the
federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents to $1.01, see 26 U.S.C.
§ 5701(b), and required anyone who manufacturers or imports processed tobacco
to obtain a federal permit, see id. § 5712.
The PACT Act, Pub. L. No. 111-154, 124 Stat. 1087, addresses the
particular problems presented by Internet and other remote sales (also known as
“delivery sales”) of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The PACT Act was passed
-7-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 17 09/28/2010 114238 74
on March 31, 2010, with the strong support of all fifty states and major public
health groups including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American
Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart
Association.2
In enacting the PACT Act, Congress found that the majority of Internet and
other remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are made without payment
of applicable taxes. See 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note, Findings 1 & 5. Since 1949, a
federal law known as the Jenkins Act has required all “out-of-state cigarette sellers
to register and to file a report with state tobacco tax administrators listing the
name, address, and quantity of cigarettes purchased by state residents,” in order to
facilitate state and local collection of taxes from the buyers. Hemi Group, LLC v.
City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983, 987 (2010). Congress found, however, that the
majority of Internet and other remote sellers do not comply with the registration
and reporting requirements of the Jenkins Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note,
Finding 5; see also Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), GAO-02-743,
See 2 http://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf/signons/PACT_Final.pdf (March 9, 2010 Letter from National Association of Attorneys General to AllMembers of the United States Senate); 2008 Hearing, at 50, 52 (Statement ofMatthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, noting thesupport of other public health groups).
-8-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 18 09/28/2010 114238 74
Internet Cigarette Sales: Giving ATF Investigative Authority May Improve
Reporting and Enforcement, at 4-5 (2002) (reporting that none of the
approximately 150 Internet cigarette vendor websites reviewed indicated
compliance with the Jenkins Act, and that 78% of those websites indicated that
they did not comply with the Act).
Congress found that billions of dollars of tax revenue are lost each year due
to remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, and that sales over the
Internet and through mail, fax, or phone orders make it cheaper and easier for
children to obtain cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. See 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note,
Findings 1 & 4. Congress found that criminals and terrorist groups profit from
trafficking in illegal cigarettes, see Findings 2 & 3, and that unfair competition
from illegal sales takes billions of dollars of sales away from law-abiding retailers
throughout the country, see Finding 6. Congress also found that the majority of3
remote sales are made without adequate precautions to prevent sales to children.
See Finding 5.
This Court has held that trafficking in untaxed cigarettes may constitute3
violations of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes and serve as predicateconduct for racketeering violations. See New York v. Smoke-Spirits.com, Inc.,541 F.3d 425, 441 (2d Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds by Hemi GroupLLC v. City of New York, 130 S.Ct. 983 (2010); United States v. DeFiore, 720F.2d 757, 761 (2d Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Melvin, 544 F.2d 767, 774(5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Brewer, 528 F.2d 492, 496 (4th Cir. 1975).
-9-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 19 09/28/2010 114238 74
Congress confronted these serious and growing problems through the PACT
Act. The Act makes it unlawful to deliver cigarettes or smokeless tobacco through
the U.S. mail, see 18 U.S.C. § 1716E, and prohibits remote sales unless the
applicable state and local taxes are paid in advance, see 15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3)-
(4), (d). The Act requires remote sellers to comply with the laws of the
jurisdictions to which their products are delivered, including restrictions on sales
to minors and requirements pertaining to the distribution of cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco, see id. § 376a(a)(3). The Act imposes new federal
registration, shipping, record keeping, and age-verification requirements, see id.
§§ 376(a)(1), 376a(b), (c), (e), and creates new penalties and enforcement
mechanisms, see, e.g., id. §§ 377, 378. The PACT Act also amends the
Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2341-2346 — which bans the
possession, receipt and shipment of more than 10,000 cigarettes that do not bear
state tax stamps — by granting the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (“ATF”) authority to enter the business premises and inspect the
records of any person who distributes more than 10,000 cigarettes in a single
transaction. See 18 U.S.C. § 2343(c)(1).
The PACT Act contains specified “Exclusions Regarding Indian Tribes and
Tribal Matters.” 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note. This provision states (among other
-10-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 20 09/28/2010 114238 74
things) that the Act shall not be construed to modify existing limitations imposed
by treaties or federal common law on state and local taxing and regulatory
authority with respect to the sale, use, or distribution of cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco by or to Indian tribes, tribal members, tribal enterprises, or in Indian
country. See ibid. Accordingly, under principles set out by the Supreme Court,
“cigarettes to be consumed on the reservation by enrolled tribal members are tax
exempt.” Department of Tax. & Fin. of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.,
512 U.S. 61, 64 (1994). By contrast, “sales to persons other than reservation
Indians . . . are legitimately subject to state taxation.” Ibid. The Supreme Court
has “rejected the proposition that ‘principles of federal Indian law, whether stated
in terms of pre-emption, tribal self-government, or otherwise, authorize Indian
tribes thus to market an exemption from state taxation to persons who would
normally do their business elsewhere.’” Id. at 72 (citations omitted). The Court
also has held that Native American sellers may be required to collect state taxes
owed by the purchasers, explaining that “[w]ithout the simple expedient of having
the retailer collect the sales tax from non-Indian purchasers, it is clear that
wholesale violations of the law by the latter class will go virtually unchecked.”
Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463, 482 (1976).
-11-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 21 09/28/2010 114238 74
II. Factual Background
Plaintiff Aaron Pierce operates a business, Red Earth LLC, that sells
cigarettes via the Internet, telephone, and mail to customers across the country.
See Red Earth Compl. ¶ 6 (JA 70); Pierce Decl. ¶ 6 (JA 95); see also
http://www.senecasmokeshop.com/ (Red Earth’s website, visited 9/21/10, attached
at AD-1 ). Red Earth admits that it does not pay taxes on the cigarettes that it4
sells. See, e.g., Red Earth Compl. ¶¶ 22, 25, 29 (JA 78-80). Red Earth declares
that “[s]hipment of tax-free cigarettes” is “an integral and important aspect of
plaintiffs’ business model, and allows plaintiffs to realize cost savings that result,
in part, in the lower prices plaintiffs’ customers pay for tobacco products.” Id.
¶ 29 (JA 80); see also Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 11-12 (JA 96-97) (describing plaintiff’s
business model of “acquir[ing] cigarettes free of” state taxes and then “resell[ing]
to consumers and other end users free of such taxes”).
Plaintiff Seneca Free Trade Association represents 141 businesses that sell
tobacco products over the Internet, fax, and phones. See SFTA Compl. ¶ 48
(JA 111). The three largest businesses employ, in total, more than 310 employees.
Moll Decl. ¶ 39 (JA 124). Most of the businesses employ 12-20 employees, and
many employ substantially more. See Moll Decl. ¶ 39 (JA 125).
“AD” refers to the addendum to this brief.4
-12-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 22 09/28/2010 114238 74
Although SFTA has not identified the businesses that it represents, Red
Earth has identified itself as an SFTA member. Moreover, another self-identified5
SFTA member, Robert Gordon, has filed a parallel PACT Act challenge in the
District of Columbia and described his operations in connection with that lawsuit.
See Gordon v. Holder, No. 10-1092-HHK (D.D.C.), appeal pending, No. 10-5227
(D.C. Cir.). Mr. Gordon’s internet tobacco retail business employs 22 people and
earned about $2 million each month in gross revenues last year. See Affidavit of
Marcia Gordon, ¶¶ 4, 13 (AD-3, AD-5). Ninety-five percent of Mr. Gordon’s
revenue comes from the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products over the
Internet and by phone. See Affidavit of Marcia Gordon, ¶ 5 (AD-3).
Like Red Earth, Mr. Gordon admits that his business does “not pay state
taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products” and “then pass[es] this savings on to all
of our customers nationwide by offering discount cigarettes, chewing tobacco,
pipe tobacco and domestic cigars online.” His website further declares that he6
does not “report tax or customer information to any government agency or other
See No. 10-3165 (2d Cir.), Docket Entry 173-1, at 4.5
6 http://www.allofourbutts.com/ (Mr. Gordon’s website, visited 9/16/2010)(attached at AD-9).
-13-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 23 09/28/2010 114238 74
entity.” Other Seneca Nation tobacco retailers make similar representations on7
their websites.8
III. District Court Proceedings
Red Earth filed its lawsuit on Friday, June 25, 2010, shortly before the
PACT Act was due to go into effect, and sought emergency injunctive relief to
block enforcement of the Act. See JA 55, 69-93. The district court entered a
temporary restraining order the following Monday, June 28. See JA 56.
On July 1, SFTA filed its complaint. See JA 101-115. The case was
consolidated with Red Earth and the district court entered a new temporary
restraining order that applied to all members of the SFTA. See JA 57, 65.
On July 30, the district court issued an Opinion and Order that granted in
part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. See JA 4-
7 http://allofourbutts.com/?page=shop/help#q11 (Mr. Gordon’s website, visited9/16/2010) (attached at AD-12).
See, e.g., 8 http://www.eecigs.com (seller located on “sovereign Seneca Nationof Indians Reservation” “do[es] not report sales, names or personal information!!!”(visited 9/18/2010) (attached at AD-16); http://www.tribaldiscounts.com (“We’re100% native owned located on the Seneca Nation of Indians reservation, whichmeans that you WON’T get a large tax bill stating that you owe anything.”)(visited 9/182010) (attached at AD-17); http://www.smoke-it-up.com/id6.html(“We are wholly owned and operated on Seneca Nation Sovereign Territory”;“[S]overeign means: 1. We DO NOT report our sales to anyone! . . . 3. No surprisetax bill in the mail. . . .”) (visited 9/18/2010) (attached at AD-18).
-14-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 24 09/28/2010 114238 74
46. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin the PACT Act provision that
makes it unlawful to send cigarettes and smokeless tobacco through the U.S. mail,
18 U.S.C. § 1716E. The court observed that it is “beyond dispute that Congress
has the authority to completely ban those products from the mails.” JA 40. The
court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the statutory exception for intra-state
mailings within the States of Alaska and Hawaii is irrational, noting that “without
such an exception, some citizens in Alaska and Hawaii would not be able to obtain
those products at all.” Ibid.
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin the PACT Act provisions that
prohibit remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco unless the applicable
state and local taxes are paid in advance, and that require remote sellers to comply
with the laws of the jurisdictions to which they ship their products, including laws
imposing excise taxes, licensing and tax-stamping requirements, restrictions on
sales to minors, and other payment obligations or legal requirements relating to the
sale, distribution, or delivery of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. See JA 46
(enjoining enforcement of 15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3)-(4), (d)). The court believed
that these federal requirements violate the due process rights of retailers that
engage in interstate commerce. See JA 17-27.
-15-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 25 09/28/2010 114238 74
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The preliminary injunction rests on an error of law. The PACT Act
provisions that were enjoined by the district court prohibit remote sales of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco unless the applicable state and local taxes are
paid in advance of delivery, and require remote sellers to abide by other tobacco
control measures including state-law restrictions on direct delivery to customers.
These federal requirements fall easily within the legislative jurisdiction of
Congress. Congress has broad power to regulate interstate commerce, and it
routinely requires interstate businesses to comply with state and local law. Such
requirements do not offend the due process rights of businesses that choose to
make interstate sales.
Plaintiffs’ due process challenge would fail even if the federal requirements
were analyzed as if they had been imposed by a state, acting unilaterally. A state
has a compelling interest in curbing in-state demand for tobacco products, which
are lethal and addictive. To that end, states have imposed excise taxes and other
measures designed to reduce the use of the tobacco products, particularly by
children and adolescents. A requirement that a purveyor of such products abide by
the tobacco control measures applicable in the jurisdiction where the products are
delivered does not offend the notions of fairness that underlie due process.
-16-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 26 09/28/2010 114238 74
In any event, the district court’s own due process analysis does not support
the injunction that it entered. The district court believed that the PACT Act’s tax-
payment requirement would violate the due process rights of unidentified remote
sellers that do not have Internet websites or otherwise solicit out-of-state business.
The court provided no basis for its order enjoining enforcement of PACT Act
requirements against Internet vendors like Red Earth, which solicit out-of-state
business through their websites. See Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, __
F.3d __, 2010 WL 3035495, *10 (2d Cir. Aug. 10, 2010); Illinois v. Hemi Group
LLC, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3547647 (7th Cir. Sept. 14, 2010).
The balance of equities and the public interest also require that the
injunction be vacated. Plaintiffs have no legitimate claim of irreparable harm.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the contention that principles of tribal
sovereignty allow tribal members to sell tax-free cigarettes to persons who are not
members of the local tribe, and it has specifically held that a state may require
tribal vendors to collect the taxes owed by its customers. By contrast, the harm
that the injunction is causing is manifest. Congress enacted the PACT Act
because it found that the majority of remote sales are made without payment of
taxes and provide a cheap supply of tobacco products that encourages underage
demand and undermines tobacco control efforts. Congress found that billions of
-17-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 27 09/28/2010 114238 74
dollars in federal, state, and local tax revenues are lost each year, and that the
profits from illegal sales are also used to finance other criminal activities. The
injunction blocks enforcement of requirements enacted by Congress to address
these serious and growing problems and directly undermines important federal
objectives. The order should be vacated.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See
Almontaser v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 519 F.3d 505, 508 (2d Cir. 2008) (per
curiam). A preliminary injunction is necessarily an abuse of discretion if it rests
on an error of law. See ibid.
ARGUMENT
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. To prevail, a plaintiff
“must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities
tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Plaintiffs have not
met these requirements. They have no likelihood of success on the merits, and the
balance of equities and public interest preclude a preliminary injunction.
-18-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 28 09/28/2010 114238 74
I. Plaintiffs Have No Likelihood Of Success On The Merits.
A. The PACT Act’s Requirement That State And Local Taxes BePaid In Advance Of Delivery Does Not Violate Due Process.
1. The PACT Act prohibits remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco products unless the applicable state and local taxes are paid in advance of
delivery. See 15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3)-(4), (d). This provision amends the Jenkins
Act, which was enacted in 1949 to facilitate the collection of state and local taxes
on interstate cigarette sales. The Jenkins Act requires “out-of-state cigarette
sellers to register and to file a report with state tobacco tax administrators listing
the name, address, and quantity of cigarettes purchased by state residents.” Hemi
Group, LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983, 987 (2010).
In enacting the PACT Act, Congress found that the majority of remote
sellers do not comply with the registration and reporting requirements of the
Jenkins Act, and that the majority of remote sales are made without payment of
applicable taxes. See 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note, Finding 5. In 2002, the GAO
reported that of the approximately 150 Internet cigarette vendors it reviewed, none
showed compliance with the Jenkins Act and 78% of the websites affirmatively
revealed noncompliance. See GAO-02-743, Internet Cigarette Sales: Giving ATF
Investigative Authority May Improve Reporting and Enforcement, at 4-5 (2002).
-19-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 29 09/28/2010 114238 74
Moreover, even the Online Tobacco Retailers Association, which opposed state
and local taxes on interstate tobacco sales, recognized that it is “difficult to
conceive of a less efficient means of tax collection than reporting sales in the hope
that sums can later be collected from consumers.” Youth Smoking Prevention and
State Revenue Enforcement Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong.
119 (May 1, 2003) (Statement of Ali Davoudi, President of the Online Tobacco
Retailers Association).
As Representative Weiner, the PACT Act’s sponsor, explained, there is a
dramatic difference between the price of legally taxed cigarettes and untaxed
cigarettes. See 2008 Hearing, at 10. For example, consumers can purchase a
carton of Marlboro cigarettes online for $31.95, whereas the same carton would
sell for $70 in New York City. See ibid. Matthew Myers, the President of the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, advised Congress that “sales of these illegally
tax-free products undermine ongoing state and local efforts to reduce tobacco use
by increasing tobacco tax rates.” Id. at 52. “Studies show, for example, that every
10% increase in real cigarette prices will reduce overall use by approximately
three or four percent and reduce the number of youth smokers by six or seven
-20-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 30 09/28/2010 114238 74
percent.” Ibid. “The availability of cheap cigarettes therefore increases overall9
tobacco use, thereby leading to higher levels of tobacco-caused disease, deaths and
costs.” Ibid. “By reducing the easy access to contraband tobacco products and
other tobacco products on which taxes have not been paid,” the PACT Act assists
“in the effort to reduce tobacco use and its harms, especially among youth and
lower-income persons.” Ibid.
The price differentials between taxed and untaxed cigarettes also make it
highly profitable to smuggle cigarettes for resale at a reduced price, and the profits
from cigarette smuggling can be used to finance other illicit activities including
organized crime and terrorism. See, e.g., id. at 3 (Statement of Rep. Gohmert); id.
at 10-11 (Statement of Rep. Weiner). The Assistant Director for Field Operations
at ATF advised Congress that cigarettes are believed to be “the number one
illegally trafficked ‘legal’ commodity in the world,” and explained that estimates
of world wide tax loss to governments are between $40 and $50 billion per year.
See also, e.g., Koh et al., Poverty, Socioeconomic Position, and Cancer9
Disparities: Global Challenges and Opportunities, 15 Geo. J. on Poverty L. &Pol’y 663, 685 (2008) (“Economists have estimated that a 10% increase incigarette price reduces cigarette consumption by 3-5% overall, and over 6%among youths.” ) (citations omitted); Chaloupka et al., Policy Levers For theControl of Tobacco Consumption, 90 Ky. L.J. 1009, 1024 (2002) (“[O]lder youth(twelfth graders) were highly sensitive to cigarette prices, smoking less whereexcise taxes are higher.”).
-21-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 31 09/28/2010 114238 74
Id. at 42-43 (Statement of William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field
Operations, ATF). Congress noted that there were more than 450 active tobacco
investigations conducted by ATF in 2005. See 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note, Finding 8.
Accordingly, the PACT Act prohibits remote sales of cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco unless the applicable state and local taxes are paid before the
products are delivered. See 15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3)-(4) & (d). The district court
believed that this federal requirement violates the due process rights of remote
sellers that engage in interstate sales. See JA 17-27. The court’s analysis was
incorrect and, even on its own terms, would not support the broad injunction
entered by the court.
The district court analyzed the federal ban on interstate shipments of
untaxed cigarettes and smokeless tobacco as if that ban had been imposed by a
state, acting unilaterally. The court noted that principles of legislative due process
require “‘that there exist some definite link, some minimum connection, between a
state and the person, property, or transaction it seeks to tax.’” JA 17 (quoting
Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16, 24 (2008)). The
court believed that under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), due
process precludes a state from requiring an out-of-state seller to pay sales taxes on
products shipped into the state unless the seller also solicits business in the state.
-22-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 32 09/28/2010 114238 74
See JA 17-23. The court enjoined the government from enforcing the PACT Act’s
tax-payment provision against Red Earth and the 140 other businesses that SFTA
represents because the court believed that the provision would be unconstitutional
as applied to unidentified remote sellers that do not sell tobacco products via the
Internet or otherwise solicit out-of-state business. See JA 20-24.
As an initial matter, the court’s legislative due process analysis incorrectly
treats the PACT Act’s tax-payment requirement as if it had been imposed by a
state, acting unilaterally. The requirement was imposed by Congress, and the
legislative due process analysis must reflect the federal character of the legislation.
It is hardly novel for Congress, in regulating interstate commerce, to require
interstate businesses to comply with state and local law. For example, firearms
distributors may not deliver a firearm “to any person in any State where the
purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of
any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery
or other disposition.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2). An online pharmacy must “comply
with the requirements of State law concerning the licensure of pharmacies in each
State from which it, and in each State to which it, delivers, distributes, or
dispenses or offers to deliver, distribute, or dispense controlled substances by
means of the Internet, pursuant to applicable licensure requirements, as determined
-23-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 33 09/28/2010 114238 74
by each such State.” 21 U.S.C. § 831(b). A farmer may not deliver agricultural
seeds in interstate commerce without “compliance with the seed laws of the State
into which the seed is transported.” 7 U.S.C. §§ 1571, 1573. Explosive dealers
may not distribute explosives to any person who intends to transport the materials
“into a State where the purchase, possession, or use of explosive materials is
prohibited.” 18 U.S.C. § 842(c). It is unlawful to accept an online bet or wager if
“such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable . . . State law in the State . . .
in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.” 31 U.S.C.
§ 5362(10)(A). And the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act has long barred any
person from knowingly distributing contraband cigarettes, which are defined to
mean a quantity of more than 10,000 cigarettes “which bear no evidence of the
payment of applicable State or local cigarette taxes in the State or locality where
such cigarettes are found, if the State or local government requires a stamp,
impression, or other indication to be placed on packages or other containers of
cigarettes to evidence payment of cigarette taxes.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 2341(2), 2342(a).
It has never been suggested that federal requirements of this sort offend
notions of legislative due process. Interstate businesses are subject to the
legislative jurisdiction of Congress, which is free to require compliance with state
and local law. Even before passage of the 21st Amendment, Congress prohibited
-24-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 34 09/28/2010 114238 74
the shipment of alcoholic beverages “when liquor is intended to be used in
violation of the law of the state.” James Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland
R. Co., 242 U.S. 311, 324-25 (1917) (discussing the Webb-Kenyon Act). The
Supreme Court rejected the contention that this federal statute exceeded
Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce “because it submitted liquors to
the control of the states.” Id. at 326. The Court explained that the “argument as
to delegation to the states rests upon a mere misconception”: “It is true the
regulation which the Webb-Kenyon Act contains permits state prohibitions to
apply to movements of liquor from one state into another, but the will which
causes the prohibitions to be applicable is that of Congress, since the application
of state prohibitions would cease the instant the act of Congress ceased to apply.”
Ibid. (emphasis added). Likewise, in Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Cent.
R. Co., 299 U.S. 334, 343 (1937), the Supreme Court rejected a due process
challenge to a federal statute that makes it unlawful to ship prisoner-made goods
into states where the “goods are intended to be received, possessed, sold, or used
in violation of its laws.” The Court explained: “The Congress has formulated its
own policy and established its own rule. The fact that it has adopted its rule in
order to aid the enforcement of valid state laws affords no ground for
constitutional objection.” Id. at 352.
-25-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 35 09/28/2010 114238 74
Applying these settled principles, a three-judge district court rejected a due
process challenge to the Jenkins Act that was analogous to the challenge urged
here. See Consumer Mail Order Ass’n of America v. McGrath, 94 F. Supp. 705
(D.D.C. 1950), aff’d, 340 U.S. 925 (1951). The plaintiffs in McGrath argued that
the Jenkins Act violates due process because it “forces a resident of one state to
submit to the jurisdiction of a second state.” Id. at 712. The three-judge court
disagreed, explaining that “it is the power of Congress, not of any state, which
requires the information to be submitted.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The court
explained that the Jenkins Act merely “imposes a condition upon the use of the
facilities of interstate commerce”; the fact that the requirement is “imposed in
order to cooperate with the power of the states to tax does not change the
situation.” Ibid.
The same principles are controlling here. Congress made it unlawful to
distribute cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in interstate commerce unless the
applicable state and local sales taxes have been paid. Because all interstate
businesses are subject to the legislative jurisdiction of Congress, it is irrelevant
whether such a business also would be subject to the legislative jurisdiction of a
particular state, acting unilaterally. When an Act of Congress is at issue, the
relevant “minimum contacts” are the contacts with the United States, not with a
-26-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 36 09/28/2010 114238 74
particular state. See, e.g., In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litigation, 334 F.3d
204, 207 (2d Cir. 2003) (examining whether defendant in federal antitrust suit
possessed “sufficient minimum contacts with the United States to satisfy due
process”); Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 122, 128 (2d Cir.
2008) (contacts with United States are sufficient for purposes of nationwide
service of process statute); SEC v. Bilzerian, 378 F.3d 1100, 1106 n.8 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (same); Busch v. Buchman, Buchman & O'Brien, Law Firm, 11 F.3d 1255,
1258 (5th Cir. 1994) (same) (collecting authorities).
The case on which the district court relied, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, did
not involve a federal statute. Instead, it addressed a North Dakota law that
required out-of-state sellers to collect an excise tax on products delivered into the
state. The Supreme Court concluded that the North Dakota statute was invalid
under the dormant commerce clause even though the state law did not offend
standards of legislative due process. In the course of its discussion, the Supreme
Court noted that “Congress has plenary power to regulate commerce among the
States and thus may authorize state actions that burden interstate commerce” but
“does not similarly have the power to authorize violations of the Due Process
Clause.” Quill, 504 U.S. at 305 (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326
U.S. 310, 315 (1945)). The Court did not overrule Clark or Kentucky Whip or
-27-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 37 09/28/2010 114238 74
suggest that a federal statute that requires compliance with state law as a condition
of engaging in interstate commerce exceeds Congress’s legislative jurisdiction.
Such federal statutes do not “authorize” due process violations; they impose
conditions on interstate commerce that fall easily within Congress’s authority.
Indeed, apart from the district court in this case, no court has ever invoked Quill as
a basis for invalidating an Act of Congress.10
Congress’s decision to ban remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco
unless the applicable taxes have been paid in advance of delivery does not offend
the “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” that are the touchstone
of due process. Id. at 307 (quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316). The
PACT Act regulates interstate sales of an addictive product that kills half of its
regular users. See p. 6, supra. Congress’s authority to regulate interstate
commerce is plenary, and it is hardly “unjust” for Congress to require that tobacco
retailers pay state and local taxes that are used to curb in-state demand.
The federal statute discussed in International Shoe did not require10
compliance with state law as a condition of engaging in interstate commerce; itprovided that “‘No person required under a State law to make payments to anunemployment fund shall be relieved from compliance therewith on the groundthat he is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or that the State law does notdistinguish between employees engaged in interstate or foreign commerce andthose engaged in intrastate commerce.’” International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 315.
-28-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 38 09/28/2010 114238 74
2. Plaintiffs’ due process objection also would fail even if the state taxes
were examined independently, apart from the federal statute. It is common ground
that due process is satisfied if there is “some definite link, some minimum
connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax.”
Meadwestvaco, 553 U.S. at 24. As long as a “foreign corporation purposefully
avails itself of the benefits of an economic market in the forum State,” the
“requirements of due process are met irrespective of a corporation’s lack of
physical presence in the taxing State.” Quill, 504 U.S. 307-08.
There is no doubt that states have a strong interest in the payment of the
excise taxes that are used to curb demand for tobacco products. Nor is there any
doubt that remote sellers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco purposefully avail
themselves of the benefits of the economic markets of the taxing states. As the
Red Earth complaint illustrates, the business model of remote sellers is predicated
on selling discount tobacco products to customers nationwide who otherwise
would pay state excise taxes at the point of sale. See Red Earth Compl. ¶ 21 (JA
78) (Red Earth “acquire[s] cigarettes free of New York excise taxes” and “resell[s]
[them] to customers and other end users in New York and other States free of such
taxes”); see also AD-10 (SFTA member Robert Gordon does “not pay state taxes
on cigarettes and tobacco products” and “then pass[es] this savings on to all of our
-29-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 39 09/28/2010 114238 74
customers nationwide by offering discount cigarettes, chewing tobacco, pipe
tobacco and domestic cigars online”). Other Seneca Nation member websites
likewise feature “tax-free” cigarettes. See supra n.8; AD-16-18. As the Supreme
Court explained in rejecting a tribal challenge to a state excise tax scheme: “What
the smokeshops offer these customers, and what is not available elsewhere, is
solely an exemption from state taxation.” Washington v. Confederated Tribes of
Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 155 (1980).
Contrary to the district court’s understanding, see JA 26, the
constitutionality of a state excise tax collection requirement does not turn on
whether a seller sends mail-order catalogs into the state. Although Quill noted
that the seller had sent catalogs into North Dakota, see 504 U.S. at 308, the
Supreme Court did not suggest that such solicitation was a constitutional
minimum. Instead, the Court declared that Quill’s contacts with North Dakota
were “more than sufficient for due process purposes.” Ibid. Where, as here, an
out-of-state seller undermines a state’s tobacco control program by distributing
untaxed cigarettes in the state, the seller purposefully avails itself of the benefits of
the state’s economic market and the requirement of “minimum contacts” is met.
3. In any event, the district court’s own analysis does not support the
injunction that it entered. Even assuming that due process requires solicitation of
-30-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 40 09/28/2010 114238 74
out-of-state business, Red Earth solicits out-of-state customers through its Internet
website, which “is accessible via the Internet in all Tribal Territories, from each of
the fifty states and from other locations throughout the world.” AD-1. SFTA11
member Robert Gordon likewise admits that, through his websites, customers “are
able to see what products are available for sale” and “choose what items they wish
to purchase on the website, similar to a mail order catalog.” Other SFTA12
members also operate Internet websites. See SFTA Compl. ¶ 48 (JA 111)
(representing that 61 of the tobacco businesses that SFTA represents take orders
only though the internet, telephone, or fax, and that 80 of the businesses have both
an internet/telephone/fax operation and a small brick-and-mortar store).
Quill makes quite clear that a seller’s use of a website rather than mail-order
catalogs does not alter the due process analysis. The Supreme Court observed that
“[i]n ‘modern commercial life’ it matters little that such solicitation is
accomplished by a deluge of catalogs rather than a phalanx of drummers: The
requirements of due process are met irrespective of a corporation’s lack of
physical presence in the taxing State.” Quill, 504 U.S. at 308. In 1992, when
11 http://www.senecasmokeshop.com/ (visited 9/21/2010, attached at AD-1)
Amended Complaint ¶ 77, Gordon v. Holder, No. 10-1092-HHK (D.D.C.);12
see also note 8, supra (other Seneca Nation member websites)
-31-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 41 09/28/2010 114238 74
Quill was decided, it was irrelevant that the seller solicited business by means of
mail-order catalogs instead of maintaining a physical presence in the state. In the
age of the Internet, it is likewise irrelevant that Red Earth and other remote sellers
solicit out-of-state business through their websites rather than through physical
mail-order catalogs.
Citing Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 571 F. Supp. 2d 518
(S.D.N.Y. 2010), the district court suggested that an Internet-based sale does not
provide adequate contacts to support personal jurisdiction. See JA 25. However,
this Court reversed the Chloe decision after the district court issued its injunction
in this case. This Court held that “by offering bags for sale to New York
consumers on the Queen Bee website and by selling bags-including at least one
counterfeit Chloé bag-to New York consumers, [defendant] has purposefully
availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State,
thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Chloe v Queen Bee of
Beverly Hills, LLC, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 3035495, *10 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation
marks, citation, and alterations omitted).
The Seventh Circuit reached the same conclusion in a case involving an
Internet cigarette vendor. In Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL
3547647 (7th Cir. Sept. 14, 2010), the State of Illinois sued an online cigarette
-32-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 42 09/28/2010 114238 74
vendor for shipping cigarettes into the State in violation of state laws, and for its
failure to comply with the Jenkins Act’s reporting requirements. Id. at *1. The
seller argued that the state court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because it was
an out-of-state business without “minimum contacts” in the State. The Seventh
Circuit rejected that argument, noting that “Hemi created several commercial,
interactive websites through which customers could purchase cigarettes”; that it
“held itself out as open to do business with every state (including Illinois) except
New York”; and that, “[a]fter the customers made their purchases online, Hemi
shipped the cigarettes to their various destinations.” Id. at *4. The Seventh
Circuit explained that the seller could not have “the benefit of a nationwide
business model with none of the exposure” and held that “[t]here is nothing
constitutionally unfair about allowing Illinois, a state with which Hemi has had
sufficient minimum contacts, to exercise personal jurisdiction over Hemi.” Id. at
*6.13
The district court entered an injunction because it believed that the PACT
Act’s tax-payment requirement would violate the due process rights of
Contrary to the district court’s suggestion, a website that forms part of a retail13
sales operation is in not a “passive” website. JA 22. A “passive” website “doeslittle more than make information available to those who are interested in it.” Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
-33-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 43 09/28/2010 114238 74
unidentified remote sellers that do not sell tobacco products through the Internet or
otherwise solicit out-of-state business. See JA 22-24. The court’s due process
analysis was wrong for the reasons already discussed. But even if the court’s
reasoning were correct, it would not support the injunction that it entered. The
court broadly enjoined the government from enforcing the PACT Act’s tax-
payment provisions against all of the remote sellers that SFTA represents,
including Red Earth and other Internet vendors. SFTA did not identify a single
remote seller that does not operate a website or otherwise solicit out-of-state
business. SFTA’s unsubstantiated assertion that such sellers exist is not a basis for
an injunction of any kind, much less an order that enjoins enforcement of the
federal statute against Internet vendors. In effect, the district court invalidated the
PACT Act’s tax-payment requirement on its face. But facial challenges are
strongly disfavored and cannot succeed unless the challenging party shows that
“the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications” or has no “plainly legitimate
sweep,” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Repub. Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449-450
(2008), a showing that could not possibly be made here.
-34-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 44 09/28/2010 114238 74
B. The District Court Offered No Basis for Enjoining The PACT ActProvisions That Require Compliance With Laws ThatGovern The Sale and Distribution Of Cigarettes.
In addition to the tax-payment requirement discussed above, the PACT Act
also requires remote sellers to comply with other laws of the jurisdictions to which
they deliver cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, including state licensing
requirements, restrictions on sales to minors, and other payment obligations or
legal requirements relating to the sale, distribution, or delivery of cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco. See 15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3). The district court provided no
basis for its order enjoining enforcement of these requirements, see JA 46 (order),
which its opinion did not discuss.
As Congress understood, the difficulties of enforcing age verification and
tax collection requirements have led some states to prohibit direct shipments of
tobacco products to consumers altogether. See 2007 IOM Report, at 209. For
example, in 2000, New York State enacted a law that prohibits direct shipment of
cigarettes to state residents and bans carriers from transporting such shipments.
Ibid. This Court rejected a dormant commerce clause challenge to the New York
law, and held that the burden on interstate commerce was significantly outweighed
by the statute’s in-state benefits, including reduced overall demand for tobacco (a
result of higher cigarette prices reflecting excise taxes), and fewer sales to minors.
-35-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 45 09/28/2010 114238 74
See Brown & Williamson, 320 F.3d at 217. Other states have enacted similar laws,
see Conn Gen. Stat. § 12-285c; Ind. Code. § 24-3-5-4.5; Md. Code. Ann. Business
Reg. § 16-222, and the PACT Act expressly preserved these state restrictions on
delivery sales. See 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(5)(C). Yet the district court, without
analysis, enjoined the federal requirement that remote sellers respect these state-
law restrictions on the means by which cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are
distributed within a state.
The court’s opinion also failed to explain why Red Earth and the 140 other
SFTA retailers should be relieved of the federal requirement that they abide by
state laws restricting the sale of cigarettes to only those brands listed in approved
state directories. See, e.g., State v. Maybee, 224 P.3d 1109, 1113-14 (Idaho 2010)
(discussing Idaho Directory); Hemi Group, 2010 WL 3547647 at *1 (state sued
retailer for, inter alia, selling cigarettes not listed in Illinois Directory). These
directories were established as part of the “Complementary Acts” passed by the
states in order to effectuate the terms of the “landmark” Master Settlement
Agreement (“MSA”) executed between the four major tobacco manufacturers and
over 40 states, Lorillard Tobacco Corp. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 533 (2001),
pursuant to which the manufacturers must “internalize the health care costs created
by their products, by making three sets of payments for a combined value of
-36-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 46 09/28/2010 114238 74
approximately $206 billion over twenty-five years,” Grand River Enterprise Six
Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60, 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). The
Complementary Acts require tobacco manufacturers who were not party to the
original MSA to either join the Agreement, or set aside funds in an escrow account
that could be used to fund “damage awards . . . for any successful cigarette-related
claims,” Grand River, 481 F.3d at 63, and to certify annually that they are
compliant with this requirement, see, e.g., Idaho Code § 39-8403(1). To ensure
compliance with these laws, Complementary Acts also prohibit the sale of any
cigarette that is not listed in the directory of compliant manufacturers. See, e.g.,
id.§ 39-8403(3). Thus, while retailers have no direct obligations under the MSA,
they play an important role in implementing it; only retailers can ensure that they
do not sell any unauthorized cigarettes across state lines. The district court offered
no basis for excusing retailer compliance with such laws.14
In an amicus brief filed in Gordon v. Holder, No. 10-5227 (D.C. Cir.), the14
State of Idaho described the important interests furthered by its ComplementaryAct and other state requirements related to the distribution of cigarettes. Theamicus brief explained that other states have laws similar to Idaho’s, andsupported the arguments it made in support of the PACT Act, including: Arizona,Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa,Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, NewYork, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington. SeeBrief of Amicus Curiae Idaho at 5 n.3.
-37-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 47 09/28/2010 114238 74
Similarly, the court’s injunction overrides state laws imposing
administrative requirements that states have enacted to ensure minors are not able
to obtain cigarettes over the Internet and by other remote means. For example,
Idaho’s Minors Access Act requires that every retailer of cigarettes in the state
apply for a no-cost permit each year before selling any cigarettes or smokeless
tobacco in the state, and subjects permittees to oversight, regulation, inspection,
and compliance checks. See Idaho Code §§ 39-5704, 39-5710. Such
administrative requirements are especially important in light of Congress’s finding
that the majority of delivery sales are made without adequate protection against
sales to minors, see 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note, Finding 5. Although the district court
assumed that retailer compliance with the PACT Act’s age-verification
requirement would be universal, see JA 52 (noting that the court had not enjoined
enforcement of 15 U.S.C. § 376a(b)(4)), “recent studies have revealed that most
Internet tobacco vendors fail to verify their customer’s age, and those that purport
to do so have largely been ineffective in obtaining age verification.” 2007 IOM
Report, at 207. A nationwide survey conducted in 2001 showed that more than
100,000 children aged 12 to 17 had recently purchased cigarettes from the
Internet. See 2008 Hearing, at 52 (Myers). A New York study found that in 2004
and 2005 more than 5% of 9th graders (14 and 15 year olds) had bought
-38-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 48 09/28/2010 114238 74
cigarettes – more than three times as many as in 2001. See ibid. Purchase rates
are even higher among older children. See ibid. Moreover, as this Court
observed, a cheap supply of “tax-free” cigarettes means that “purchasers of any
age may supply youthful smokers who do not themselves purchase through direct
channels.” Brown & Williamson, 320 F.3d at 217.
II. The Balance Of Equities And The Public Interest Require That The Preliminary Injunction Be Vacated.
As shown above, plaintiffs have no likelihood of success on the merits and
the injunction should be vacated on that basis. In addition, the balance of equities
and the public interest require that the preliminary injunction be vacated.
In discussing plaintiffs’ harm, the district court did not suggest that Red
Earth and other SFTA members are entitled to undercut their “law-abiding”
competitors throughout the United States, 15 U.S.C. § 375 Note, Finding 6, by
marketing “an exemption from State taxation.” Confederated Tribes, 447 U.S. at
155. The Supreme Court has repeatedly “rejected the proposition that ‘principles
of federal Indian law, whether stated in terms of pre-emption, tribal
self-government, or otherwise, authorize Indian tribes thus to market an exemption
from state taxation to persons who would normally do their business elsewhere.’”
Milhelm, 512 U.S. at 71-72 (discussing Moe, 425 U.S. 463; Confederated Tribes,
-39-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 49 09/28/2010 114238 74
447 U.S. 134 (1980); and Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi
Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991)). Under the principles set out by the Supreme
Court, “cigarettes to be consumed on the reservation by enrolled tribal members
are tax exempt.” Milhelm, 512 U.S. at 64. By contrast, “sales to persons other
than reservation Indians . . . are legitimately subject to state taxation.” Ibid.
The district court instead cited the administrative burden of having to
ascertain state and local tax obligations and ensure that the taxes are paid before
the products are delivered. See JA 29. But compliance with the laws of different
jurisdictions is an administrative burden that is commonly borne by a businesses
that choose to engage in nationwide commerce, and cannot suffice to establish
irreparable harm. The Supreme Court has specifically held that Indian retailers
may be required to collect taxes from their customers because, “[w]ithout the
simple expedient of having the retailer collect the sales tax from non-Indian
purchasers, it is clear that wholesale violations of the law by the latter class will go
virtually unchecked.” Moe, 425 U.S. at 482.
Moreover, the asserted administrative burden is overstated. All but three
states require that cigarettes bear state tax stamps, which are typically purchased15
See Richard Carver, State Weighs Reintroduction of Tax Stamps for15
Cigarettes, Winston-Salem Journal, Feb. 2, 2010, http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2010/feb/02/state-weighs-reintroduction-of-tax-stamps-for-ciga/ (visited
-40-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 50 09/28/2010 114238 74
and affixed by state-licensed stamping agents. See, e.g., Milhelm, 512 U.S. at 64
(describing New York state excise tax regime); Confederated Tribes, 447 U.S. at
141 (describing Washington state taxing regime). Like their brick-and-mortar
competitors, SFTA members can include the applicable taxes in the sale prices of
their cigarettes and rely on state-licensed stamping agents to obtain and affix the
necessary stamps prior to making delivery. Alternatively, if they choose, they may
become licensed stamping agents for the states in which they deliver their
products. Indeed, Internet retailer Scott Maybee — also a member of the Seneca
Nation — has announced on his website that he has come into compliance with the
PACT Act. In “A Message To Our Customers Regarding The PACT ACT,” he
explains: “You may notice our prices have gone up. Because of the PACT ACT
which comes into effect June 29th excise taxes are now included in the price of
our tobacco products.” The website identifies the states to which Mr. Maybee is16
currently delivering and explains that he is “working quickly to become compliant
with tobacco laws in additional states.” 17
Sept. 16, 2010).
16 http://www.ordersmokesdirect.com (visited Sept. 10, 2010) (copy attached asAD-15).
Ibid.17
-41-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 51 09/28/2010 114238 74
Whereas plaintiffs’ assertions of harm are unsubstantiated, the important
interests served by the PACT Act are reflected in express legislative findings and
supported by the legislative record. As discussed, Congress enacted the PACT
Act because it found that the majority of Internet and other remote sales are made
without payment of taxes, without compliance with existing federal registration
and reporting requirements, and without adequate precautions to protect children.
Congress found that untaxed cigarettes and smokeless tobacco provide a cheap
supply of tobacco products that encourages underage demand and undermines
tobacco control efforts. Congress found that billions of dollars in federal, state,
and local tax revenues are lost each year, and that the profits from illegal sales are
also used to finance other criminal activities. Accordingly, Congress prohibited
the delivery of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco unless the applicable taxes are
paid in advance and required remote sellers to comply with the laws of the
jurisdictions to which their products are delivered. The district court’s injunction
undermines these important federal objectives and is, therefore, manifestly against
the public interest.
-42-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 52 09/28/2010 114238 74
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary injunction should be vacated.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, Jr. United States Attorney
s/Michael P. Abate MARK B. STERN (202) 514-5089ALISA B. KLEIN (202) 514-1597MICHAEL P. ABATE (202) 616-8209 Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7318 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530
SEPTEMBER 2010
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 53 09/28/2010 114238 74
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)(7)(c)OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
I hereby certify pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C) that the foregoing
brief satisfies the type-face and volume limitations set forth in Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) because the type face is Times New Roman,
proportionally spaced, fourteen-point font, and it contains 9,418 words, according
to the count of Corel WordPerfect X4.
/s/ Michael P. Abate Michael P. Abate
-44-
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 54 09/28/2010 114238 74
ADDENDUM
www.senecasmokeshop.com (Red Earth website). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AD-1
Affidavit of Marcia Gordon, No. 10-1092-HHK (D.D.C.) (Dkt. No. 1-3).. . . AD-2
http://www.allofourbutts.com (Robert Gordon website). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AD-9
http://www.cigarettesavers.com (Robert Gordon website).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . AD-14
http://www.ordersmokesdirect.com (Scott Maybee website). . . . . . . . . . . . . AD-15
http://www.eecigs.com (Seneca retailer website). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AD-16
http://www.tribaldiscounts.com (Seneca retailer website). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AD-17
http://www.smoke-it-up.com/id6.html (Seneca retailer website). . . . . . . . . . AD-18
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 55 09/28/2010 114238 74
Seneca Smokeshop offers discount cigarettes, loose tobacco, chewing tobacco and cigars. Buy cigarettes from the convenience of your own home AND save money! We offer premium brands such as Marlboro, Camel, Kool and Newport, but we also offer your favorite native brands such as Seneca, Native, Niagara, Heron, and Berkley! Why pay retail prices when you can shop online AND save
money?
SenecaSmokeShop.com operates this website from its business offices located within the Territories of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Our website is accessible via the Internet in all Tribal Territories, from each of the fifty states and from other locations throughout the world. Because each viewing location may have laws that
are different from those of the Seneca Nation of Indians, and to avoid the significant expenses associated with being sued in a remote jurisdiction, we require all customers and any other persons using this website to agree
to the terms of this Provision.
You agree by using this website that this Provision and your future access to, and use of this website is governed in all respects by the laws, regulations, rules and codes of the Seneca Nation of Indians
(notwithstanding any choice/conflict of laws provisions of your home jurisdiction). Any person who uses this website to transact business with us, or who uses it to communicate with us, agrees that his or her use for
such purposes and/or the resolution of any disputes relating to such use are subject to the laws and territorial jurisdiction of the Seneca Nation of Indians. In addition, you agree that the Seneca Nation of Indians maintains exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes, claims, suits, or controversies relating to this website, your use of this
website and your relationship with us.
Use of this website is unauthorized in any jurisdiction that does not recognize and give full effect to all the terms and conditions set forth in this Provision.
Seneca Smokeshop offers discount cigarettes, loose tobacco, chewing tobacco and cigars. Buy cigarettes from the convenience of your own home AND save money! We offer premium brands such as Marlboro, Camel, Kool and Newport, but we also offer your favorite native brands such as Seneca, Native, Niagara, Heron, and Berkley! Why pay retail prices when you can shop online AND save money?
I Accept the Terms I Do Not Accept the Terms
Page 1 of 1Seneca Smokeshop - Discount cigarettes, tobacco, cigars, and tobacco accessories ...
9/27/2010http://www.senecasmokeshop.com/
AD-1
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 56 09/28/2010 114238 74
: Case 1:1 0-cv-01 092-HHK Document 1-3 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT GORDON, ))
Plaintiff, ))
va, ))
ERIC HOLDER, In hisofflcial capacity as )Attorney General ofthe United States; )
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW )Washington, DC 20530-000 I )
)ONITED STATES DEPARTMENT )OF JUSTICE; )
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW )Washington, DC 20530-0001 )
)KENNETH MELSON, in his offroial capocitjl )as Acting Director ofthe Bureau ofAlcohol, )Tt'baeco, Firearms and Explosives, )
99 New York Avenue, NE )Washlngton, DC 20226 )
)BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, )FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; )
99 New York Avenue, NE )Washington. DC 20226 )
)JOHN "JACK" POTTER, in ki.r ojJIciai )capacitjl as Postmaster General; )
475 L'llnfant Plaza SW )Washington DC 20260·0010 )
)UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVIC:£, )
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW )Washington DC 20260·0010 )
)Defendant., )
Case No, _
Affidavit of Marcia Gordon
Appx.33
Case: 10-5227 Document: 1261840 Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 38
AD-2
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 57 09/28/2010 114238 74
Case 1:10-cv-01092-HHK Document 1-3 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 9
Marcia Gordon, of foliage, being dilly sworn according to law, upon his oath,
deposes and says:
1. My name is Marcia Gordon. J am manied to Robert
Gordon, the plaintiff in tbis case.
2. My husband owns a retail cigarette and tobacco products
business on the Allegheny Territory. I handle the day-to-day operations of this business.
I have personal knowledge of all facts in this affidavit.
3. This business has been in opexations since March 2002 and
had its first internet sale in May 2002. The postal address is 719 :aroad St., Salamanca,
New York, 14779.
4, This business employees 22 people, some of whOOl are
Seneca Indians, The5e employees assist in office-related tasks as well as packaging and
shipping prodllcts.
5. Our store sells cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco
products and some tobacco prodllcts sllch as rolling papers. Ninety-five percent (95%) of
our business, however, Is based on orden (telephone and interneI) from outside the
Alleghany Territory. The remaining 5% is from walk-in bUsiness.
6. We maintain two websites on which customers can place
orders: www,elgarettesavers.com and www.aIlofourbutts.com. The vast majority of our
cuslOOlers place orders through those websites. Some customers also place orders by
telephone.
7. The Seneca Nation has certain regulations requiring us to
verify the age of our purchasers and we follow those regulations.
Appx. 34·
Case: 10-5227 Document: 1261840 Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 39
AD-3
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 58 09/28/2010 114238 74
Case 1:10-cv-01092-HHK Document 1-3 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 9
8, To comply with laws pl'(lbibiling sales of our products to
minors, we have implemented two procedures designed to ensure !bat only adults can
purchase our cigarettes. First, we use a payment service called CheckCare. CheckCare
requires buyers to provide !beir drivers license numbers and !be last four digits of their
SOcial Security Numbers, CheckCare uses this information to verify that every customer
is over the age of 18. Second, we use a pl'(lgram called "Postal Package Partner" to pay
for and label our packages, I believe that Postal Package Partner is produced by the U.S.
Postal Service ("US:I'S"). or by some sub-c:ontractor to the USPS One option on Postal
Package Partner is to mark packages as requiring an adult signature. On at least two
occasions, we have discovered througb this signature verification process that our
products had been ordered by minors using stolen identification numbers. On those
occasions we communicated with the minors' parents and arranged for the products to be
returned.
9. Since November of 2004, we have been unable to deliver
our products using Dm.. Federal Express. or UPS. All of those companies refuse to
accept tobacco pl'(lducts for delivery in the state of NewYork. II has been widely
reported !bat these companies gave in to pressure by the former governor of New York,
Eliot Spitzer, and agreed not to ship tobacco products. As a result, our only method of
shipping is through the USPS. To our knOWledge, we have no alternative means of
shipping our products across the country.
10. Last week, our local USPS informed us that, as of June 29,
2010, they would nO longer pick up our packages because of !be PAcr Act. Specifically,
the local USPS sent uS a letter saying lIlat the PACT Act will make cigarettes and tobacco
Appx.35
Case: 10-5227 Document: 1261840 Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 40
AD-4
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 59 09/28/2010 114238 74
Case 1:10-cv-01092-HHK Document 1-3 Filed 06/28/10 Page 4 of9
products nonmailable as ofJune 29. 2010. It also ~tated that "the United States p~ta1
Service will nO longer provide pick up service tnmsportalion for cigarette product
mailings effective June 29, 2010." A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit A.
11. Without postal delivery, we caDIlOt fill our online orders
which are 95% of our business. As of June 29, 2010, our entire business will effectively
cea~ to C2<ist.
12. Because of the PACT Act, we have already been forced to
take steps to shut down our business. Because we cannot process new customers or new
orders in time for the deadline, we cannot take any orders. We have also started 10 refund
money to eldsling customers whose orders we cannot fill by June 29, 2010. last week, I
informed our shipping and packing employees that they should not report for work after
June 28, 2010. I have told some of our ten office employees that they will be paid for a
few additional days to help wind up the business, but that they will be let go immediately
after that. One of our office staff employees has already been laid off. Four of our
shipping employees have already quit in anticipation of the deadline, either to find other
work or to apply for welfare benefits.
13. If the PACf Act goes into effect, our business will suffer
immediate injury that cannot be fixed in the future. We will lose substantial expected
profits for every day we are out of business. Last year, we had approximately $2 million
in monthly gross revenues. The profit margin for our business ranges between 5 and
10%. Based on those figures, we will lose approximately $100,000 and $200,000 each
month that the PACT Act is in effect.
14. To make matters worse, we will have to continue to pay
Appx.36
Case: 10-5227 Document: 1261840 Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 41
AD-5
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 60 09/28/2010 114238 74
Case 1:1 0-cv-01 092-HHK Document 1-3 Filed 06/28/10 Page 5 of 9
long-term contracts for services we are no longer able 10 use. For instance, we have
another three years on our set rate phone conlraCt. Each line costs us $19.95 per month
per phone in fixed costs. We have five phone lines. We are in a three year contract. We
also pay a malriculated fee each month. last month, we also paid $6000 iri annual fees
for our annual website and postal managemem services. Once the PAcr Act gOes into
effect, we will have no need for these colltracts, but will still be obligate<! to pay for them.
15. Even if the USPS later sIarIS delivering our packages, our
business will be difficult to recover. Our C\lStomers will soon find other distributors, and
we may fOld that we cannot rebuild our C\lStomer base after weeks, months, or years out
of the business. Our employees have already begun to look for work elsewhere. SOllle of
those employees would be difficult to replace. The office staff, in particolar, are highly
trained and halfe skills that are uncommon on the Allegany Territory.
16. Ifwe cannot operate an internet-based cigarette business on
this land, I cannot think of another useful purpose for the building. It will effectively be
wortbJCllS. My husband and I have tried several other businesses on this location and
none have succeeded.
17. Our business is not alone inilS lroubles. Mail-order
tobacco retailers represent an enOrmOUS proportion of Seneca-run businesses. There are
hondreds of S\1ch businesses on the Seneca Territory and if the Act goes into effect,
thousands of jobs will be lost. 111 addition, the wholesalers and distributors who supply us
with cigarettes will have 10 go out of businClls. The Seneca Nation of Indians will also
lose substantial revenuCll as a result of the drop in licenSing fees and the enormous
increase in unemployment.
Appx.37
Case: 10-5227 Document: 1261840 Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 42
AD-6
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 61 09/28/2010 114238 74
Case 1:10-cv-01092-HHK Document 1-3 Filed 06/28/10 Page 6 of 9
18. Even ifwe could ship our products after the PAcr Act
goes into effect, we do not know, and have been unable to find out, how to comply with
the provision of the Act requiring us to pay any state excise taxes before we sell or send
any of our products into olber states. My husband and I are concerned about facing
criminalliabllity ifw.. do ship our products but do not comply with state laws because we
have no guidance from those states about how 10 comply.
Appx.38
Case: 10-5227 Document: 1261840 Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 43
AD-7
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 62 09/28/2010 114238 74
Case 1:10-cv-01092-HHK Document 1-3 Filed 06/28/10 Page 7 of9
I declare under pellaity of perjury thai the foregoing is true and correct.
Marcia Gordon
Sworn to me this ;.gttdsy ofJune, 2010
~i~- Bo~KAREN J. PLOETZ
Notary PuDlic. Stilt, of New Yol1IQualifiad In catlaraUgYlt~':'13
COmmission e<plra, ~!::j.'/:.M-J,;;.~--""-
Appx.39
Case: 10-5227 Document: 1261840 Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 44
AD-8
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 63 09/28/2010 114238 74
AllOfOurButts.Com Shop For Discount Premium Brand Cigarettes and Popular Tobacco Products
HOME OUR FAQ CONTACT US Login VIEW CART CHECKOUT
Printable Product List
PRODUCTS
Premium Cigarettes Generic Cigarettes Economy Cigarettes Cigars - Domestic Chewing Tobacco Moist & Dry Snuff Rolling Supplies Pipe Tobacco Rolling Tobacco Plug Tobacco Electronic Cigarettes
Hummer Giveaway! View Special Offers Browse All Products
Product Search:
Marlboro Go
Go
MY ACCOUNT
Not logged in yet?
Username:
Password:
Create new account
Login
Discount Premium & Generic Cigarettes, Domestic Cigars And Fresh Chewing & Rolling Tobacco
Welcome to Allofourbutts.Com!
We're located in the city of Salamanca, New York - Home of the Seneca Nation of Indians on the Allegany Indian Reservation. You'll find a wide variety of discount tobacco products here, we have some of the lowest prices on the net! For your ease and convenience, we have developed this user friendly website. Stop paying those high retail prices and start saving with Allofourbutts.com! Join the many satisfied customers who order all their discount cigarettes, direct from our store. Browse our extensive selections of Premium, Generic and our Economy Brands and be sure to check out our monthly specials in the Special Offers section. If you don't see your brand or product, just give us a call at 1-800-337-2043 and we will try to get them for you!
You must be at least 18 years or older to order tobacco products at Allofourbutts.Com
We can now take orders by Phone! Please call us toll Free at 1-800-337-2043
All products listed on our web site are for personal use only and not for resale.
* * * * Allofourbutts.Com Disclaimer * * * *
We're sorry, but due to product style availability at various times, we're unable to specify if you will receive either box or soft packs on certain cigarette brands. If you have a style preference and would like to wait for your preference, please be sure to put a note about your preference in the Notes Section of your online order or tell one of our sales representative when placing your order by phone. We thank you for shopping with us, and we apologize for any delay and inconvenience this may cause.
******************************************************************** ********************************************************************
PLEASE NOTE!!!!!! ALL SHIPPING TO EAST COAST CUSTOMERS DOES
TAKE 2-3 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY AND ALL WEST COAST CUSTOMERS TAKES 3-5 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY
PLEASE BE PATIENT DURING THIS TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
-ALLOFOURBUTTS ******************************************************************** ********************************************************************
===========================================
AS OF JUNE 15th, 2010, ALL SALES AND ORDERS ARE FINAL. NO RETURNS DUE TO INCORRECT ORDER PLACEMENT
WILL BE TAKEN, AND NO CREDITS WILL BE ISSUED TO ACCOUNTS FOR FURTHER ORDER PLACING. THANK YOU
FOR YOU TIME IN THIS MATTER. ===========================================
Our current office hours are:
Monday - Friday: 9 AM to 6 PM Saturday: 9 AM to 4 PM
Toll Free : 1-800-337-2043
Fax: (716)-945-5649
All Times Eastern Standard Time -----------------------------------------------
SAFE SECURE
FAST
Shop as you normally do, and have a paper check
handy!
4 Aces A One Al Capone American SpiritApple AyC Cigars Backwoods BasicBeech-Nut Benson & Hedges Blackstone Borkum RiffBronco Buffalo Bugler CalonCamel Capri Captain Black CarltonCarter Hall Chesterfield Copenhagen CougarDays Work Doral Double Diamond DrumDunhill Dutch Masters Dutch Treats E-Z WiderEl Producto Electronic Eve ExactG.P.C. Gambler Garcia y Vega Grand PrixGrizzly Half & Half Hav-A-Tampa HavanaHawken Heron Husky JokerKamel Kayak Kent King EdwardKite Kodiak Kool LancasterLevi Garrett Lewiston Liggett Select LonghornLucky Strike Market Marlboro MaverickMax Merit Middleton Midnight SpecialMiss Diamond Misty Monarch MontclairMore Muriel Nat Sherman NativeNewport Niagara Now Old GoldOmega Opal Paladin Pall MallParliament Phillies Phillip Morris Prince Albert
Page 1 of 2Discount Cigarettes: Discount Mail Order Cigarettes American Tobacco
9/16/2010http://www.allofourbutts.com/
AD-9
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 64 09/28/2010 114238 74
Lucky Strike Market Marlboro MaverickMax Merit Middleton Midnight SpecialMiss Diamond Misty Monarch MontclairMore Muriel Nat Sherman NativeNewport Niagara Now Old GoldOmega Opal Paladin Pall MallParliament Phillies Phillip Morris Prince AlbertPyramid Quest Railroad Mills RaveRed Man Red Seal Salem Sampler CartonSaratoga Seneca Silver Creek Sincerely YoursSir Walter Raleigh Skoal SkyDancer Smokers BestSmokin Joes Sonoma Southern Pride Swisher SweetsTareyton Tijuana Smalls Timberwolf TopTrophy True USA Gold VantageVelvet Virginia Slims Warrior WaveWhite Owl Winchester Winston Wm. PennYours Yukon Zig Zag
Allofourbutts.com sells tobacco products, discounted daily and at very competitive prices. We are located in Western New York state on the Allegany Indian Reservation. The business is Native American Indian (Seneca) owned and operated, and we offer discount tobacco products in our store, online, e-mail or by phone. As a Sovereign Nation, we do not pay state taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, we then pass this savings on to all of our customers nationwide by offering discount cigarettes, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco and domestic cigars online. To place an order you can use our online shopping cart and secure transaction system or call 1.800.337.2043 six days a week between the hours of 9 AM to 5:30 PM Monday thru Friday and 9 AM to 4 PM Saturdays.
© Copyright 2010 AllOfOurButts.Com, All Rights Reserved. [Web Site Usage Terms] [Our Privacy Policy and Security Information.]
Web site development and design by J.T.Stokkeland and Sauen.Com. Surgeon General’s Warning: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.
Page 2 of 2Discount Cigarettes: Discount Mail Order Cigarettes American Tobacco
9/16/2010http://www.allofourbutts.com/
AD-10
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 65 09/28/2010 114238 74
AllOfOurButts.Com Shop For Discount Premium Brand Cigarettes and Popular Tobacco Products
HOME OUR FAQ CONTACT US Login VIEW CART CHECKOUT
Printable Product List
PRODUCTS
Premium Cigarettes Generic Cigarettes Economy Cigarettes Cigars - Domestic Chewing Tobacco Moist & Dry Snuff Rolling Supplies Pipe Tobacco Rolling Tobacco Plug Tobacco Electronic Cigarettes
Hummer Giveaway! View Special Offers Browse All Products
Product Search:
Marlboro Go
Go
MY ACCOUNT
Not logged in yet?
Username:
Password:
Create new account
Login
Allofourbutts.com Frequently Asked Questions
Here you will find answers to the most common questions we get regarding our business processes. If you have any questions or don't find what your looking for, please call one of our sales representatives at 1.800.337.2043 and they will help you with your questions.
How is my order shipped? How can we sell at such low discounted prices? What if I don't see my type of cigarette or cigar? How do I pay for my tobacco order? How can I place my order? Why are shipping charges high? Can I use my credit or debit card? Why are first-time customer's orders held? How fresh are your tobacco products? What if I have a problem with my order? Will I be charged taxes? Do you accept manufacture's coupons? What is your Privacy Policy? What is your User Account Policy? What are your Terms of Use for your web site? How old do I have to be to place and order? What is your Return Policy?
How is my order shipped? We ship all orders by USPS Priority Mail only. It usually takes 3-7 business days. Please remember that the USPS does not include weekends or holidays as business days. Shipping will be added to your order and a handling fee of $1.50 is charged per order, and not per carton. You will know at the time when you place your order, exactly what your shipping cost will be. We usually are able to pack & ship your order out the following day after receiving your online or phone order. All our tobacco products are received fresh from the manufactures and distributors daily. All shipping charges are based on your shipping zip code and the total weight of the items in your order. We strive to ship all orders we receive within 24 hours of processing, but some orders may take a little longer due to delivery times of products coming in to us and/or our wholesalers and product demand. If you would like to know the status of your package, please feel free to call us or email us, and we will gladly let you know the status of your order or package.
Back to the top
How can we sell at such low discounted prices? We are a Native American owned business located on the Seneca Nation (a Sovereign Nation) in Western New York. Because we are a Native American enterprise in New York State, and all transactions are consummated on the Allegany Indian Reservation, we do not have to pay sales tax. Even if you live in the state of California and you wish to order from us, you will not be charged a New York State sales tax or your states.
Back to the top
What if I don't see my type of cigarette or cigar? Allofoubutts.com is constantly updating our inventory. In the event that you don't see something that you want please call or email us. In most cases, if we don't have the item in stock, we can order it for you. We have an extensive network of suppliers and vendors and we can usually get what you want very quickly. Some products may take a little longer to obtain due to manufacturer's delivery to a wholesaler and also product demand. In the event that we cannot get your product, we will do our best to find another supplier to see if we can obtain a product; if we're unable to get it, we will see when it will be available to us. Please remember that allot depends on the manufacturer's current supply and when and where they distribute their products to the wholesalers. Your satisfaction is our main concern, and we'll do our best to get your orders filled as quickly as possible.
Back to the top
How do I pay for my tobacco order? We accept checks over the phone by Electronic Check Transfer, online E-Checks and money orders through the mail. We do not accept check through the US Mail, just money orders at this time. If you would like to use money order through the mail, you can place an order online and select the Money Order option, or call us and we can help you complete your order. Please make sure that all Money Orders are made payable to: Allofourbutts.Com.
Back to the top
How can I place my order? There a couple of different ways to order. You are welcome to shop on this website, Allofourbutts.com, 365 days of the year. We are open from 9 AM – 5:30 PM Monday thru Friday and 9 AM – 4 PM on Saturday. We are closed on Sundays. We can take your order by phone by calling our toll free number 1-800-337-2043. When
Page 1 of 3Discount Cigarettes: Discount Mail Order Cigarettes American Tobacco
9/16/2010http://allofourbutts.com/?page=shop/help&ps_session=23b6cbd1eb43284cc209...
AD-11
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 66 09/28/2010 114238 74
you create an account online, our online system will remember you when you return and when you log in. We are closed for some holidays (We will put a note on the front page of early closings or when we will not be open.)
Back to the top
Why are shipping charges high? We can only use USPS Priority Mail to ship our orders. To do so, we have purchased a Delivery Confirmation with Signature Required. This ensures that you receive the package, and if it is ever lost/stolen/damaged, we can recover it and reship your order if needed. USPS Priority mail goes by weight of package, so it does increase slightly as the amount you order goes up, but it works out better per carton for shipping.
Back to the top
Can I use my credit or debit card? We do not accept credit cards at this time. We are hoping to regain this soon, but at this time, we cannot accept any type of credit card or bank debit cards.
Back to the top
Why are first-time customer's orders held? The first orders for customers, regardless of size, quantity or amount, are held for your protection and ours. There is alot of fraud attempts on the internet today, so in order to curb these attempts and to protect you and us, we have instituted this rule. There are NO exceptions to this rule. Fraud is a serious offense, if you are attempting to use a stolen or unauthorized check or other bogus activity, don't do it here. If you have any further questions about this, please feel free to contact us.
Back to the top
How fresh are your tobacco products? Because we do such a high volume of sales we receive new stock daily. We guarantee that the products we sell are the freshest available. If you receive a product that is not fresh please let us know and we will promptly replace it.
Back to the top
What if I have a problem with my order? In the event that you have a problem with your order, please email us immediately at [email protected] or call us Toll Free Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET at 1.800.337.2043. All shortages must be reported within 24hrs of delivery. Please keep all packaging material in case you need to return any product back to us. If you receive an incorrect item due to a mistake on our part, please call or email us immediately and we will gladly replace the wrong item with the correct item and ship the correct order back to you at our cost. If there was a mistake on your part you can ship the incorrect merchandise back to us at your expense. If you decide that after you receive your order you do not want an item(s) just return the "unopened" carton(s) back to us and we will refund your money. Shipping fees cannot be refunded. Refunds take up to 10 business days to process. All returns must be made within 7 days of receiving your purchase.
Back to the top
Will I be charged taxes? We are a Native American owned business located on the Seneca Nation (a Sovereign Nation) in Western New York. Because we are a Native American enterprise in New York State, and all transactions are consummated on the Allegany Indian Reservation, we do not collect sales tax. Nor do we report tax or customer information to any government agency or other entity. It is the responsibility of the Buyer to ascertain and comply with any laws in regard to the purchase and use of any cigarette products. In order to determine the applicable limits on purchases or taxing responsibilities, if any, imposed by your particular state, the consumer may want to contact their state authorities.
Back to the top
Do you accept manufacture's coupons? Sorry, we are unable to accept manufacturer coupons at this time. Any coupons sent to us will not be returned.
Back to the top
Page 2 of 3Discount Cigarettes: Discount Mail Order Cigarettes American Tobacco
9/16/2010http://allofourbutts.com/?page=shop/help&ps_session=23b6cbd1eb43284cc209...
AD-12
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 67 09/28/2010 114238 74
What is your Privacy Policy? At Allofourbutts.com, we are committed to protecting your privacy. We consider the information obtained from our consumers and from other visitors to this site to be confidential; no information is ever given to anyone for any reason. We use the information we collect about you to process orders and to provide a more personalized shopping experience. We will not collect any personal information about you except when you specifically and knowingly provide it. Access to such information is limited to only those employees and representatives of Allofourbutts.com who need to use it in the course of their assigned responsibilities.
Back to the top
What is your User Account Policy? In order to assure proper use of Customer Service and smooth processing, we may need to contact customers regarding their orders. Therefore we require that customers provide and maintain current phone numbers and email addresses within their account for as long as the account remains in use and orders are placed. We do not use this information for any other reason than the issue that may be at hand and we will never sell or share this information with another party. Orders that are placed with incorrect contact information or placed with user accounts that contain incorrect contact info will be canceled immediately, as will the corresponding account.
Back to the top
What are your Terms of Use for your web site? Using our website constitutes agreement to our Web Site Terms and any breach of said Web Site Terms can result in refusal of service and in extreme cases criminal prosecution. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. You agree to hold Allofourbutts.com harmless from any damages that may arise form the use of our website. You also acknowledge that our tobacco products are for your personal use only and not intended for commercial resale.
Back to the top
How old do I have to be to place and order? You must be at least 18 years of age or older or of legal age within your state to order tobacco products from All of Our Butts. By accepting these terms and conditions you are indicating you are of legal age to purchase cigarettes. To misrepresent your age is a felony charge. Those found falsifying their age may be prosecuted by the law.
Back to the top
What is your Return Policy? We want you to be totally satisfied with anything that you order from us. Inspect your purchase immediately upon receipt. If you are not satisfied with the condition of the products, or the products are faulty or incorrect, please let us know immediately and we will give you return instructions. Then, return the unused and unopened merchandise within 7 days of receipt and we will exchange the merchandise or refund your money. The customer will be responsible for arranging return transportation, and postage costs; we will pay the shipping cost in the event that the error or damaged product was our fault when we ship the corrected items back to you.
Back to the top
© Copyright 2010 AllOfOurButts.Com, All Rights Reserved. [Web Site Usage Terms] [Our Privacy Policy and Security Information.]
Web site development and design by J.T.Stokkeland and Sauen.Com. Surgeon General’s Warning: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.
Page 3 of 3Discount Cigarettes: Discount Mail Order Cigarettes American Tobacco
9/16/2010http://allofourbutts.com/?page=shop/help&ps_session=23b6cbd1eb43284cc209...
AD-13
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 68 09/28/2010 114238 74
Dear Valued Customer: We are now able to accept orders by phone only. Note: Shipping times to the West Coast are taking longer due to high volume . Please plan accordingly and order early. Please call:
CigarettesAmerica.com: 888-388-1964
CigaretteSavers.com: 800-383-8852 Please check back regularly for updates. Thank you for your support! Sincerely, CigarettesAmerica.com and CigaretteSavers.com
Page 1 of 1
9/17/2010http://www.cigarettesavers.com/
AD-14
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 69 09/28/2010 114238 74
AD-15
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 70 09/28/2010 114238 74
To place orders or get more information please call us toll free at: 1-800-536-7014. Our discounted cigs products will be delivered to you via USPS from the sovereign Seneca Nation of Indians Reservation. Personal Check or Money Order. Elliott Enterprise requires age verification via government issued id along with first order.
Click Product for details:
10 Pack Sampler $22.20
A One $23.70
American Club $8.00
American Club Tobacco $8.00
American Spirit $25.00
ARIVA Dissolvable Tobacco $11.50
Backwoods $31.00
Basic $44.40 Beechnut $38.00
Benson & Hedges $56.50
Berkley $22.20
Between The Act $20.00
BISHOP $23.80 Bronco $28.00 Buffalo $22.20 Buglar $23.00 Bugler $6.00 Calon $22.20 Camel $45.10 Capri $59.10
Captain Black $20.00
Carlton $59.40 Carnival $23.00 Carter Hall $21.00
Chesterfield $56.20
Cheyenne $20.00
Copenhagen 5 ct $18.00
Copenhagen 5ct $18.00
Cougar 5 ct $17.00
Cougar 5ct $17.00
Elliott EnterpriseToll Free: 1-800-536-7014
Fax: 716-945-3575
Please make checks out to: Elliott EnterpriseElliot Enterprise has merged with deerpath to bring you
outstanding savings for your tobacco products. You can now also find us at eecigs.com
Elliott Enterprise
38 Main Street - PO Box 21 Salamanca, NY 14779
All Prices subject to change without notice.
Please phone ahead for accurate order total with shipping charges.Best Prices, Service and Selection!!
All orders delivered by United States Priority Mail.
All orders received will ship within 2 business days except for out of stocks.
Thank You. Elliott Enterprise
Store Hours Monday thru Friday 9-6 Saturday 10-4
You must be 18 years of age or older to order tobacco products. Some popular value brands: Niagara, Seneca, Smoking Joe, Native, GT One, Bronco
Please call to verify current shipping cost for your order. Due to increasing costs from the Manufacturers', we are forced to raise prices immediately. Dare to compare...Elliott Enterprise still remains the best source for all your discounted cigs tobacco. Great service and unbeatable PRICES!!! Delivered fast, fresh and confidential...you've tried the rest but now order from the best!! We do not report sales, names or personal information!!! Give us a call for unbelievable savings!! You'll love the savings! $$$$ 1-800-536-7014 $$$$$$
Page 1 of 4discounted cigs TOBACCO PRODUCTS, RESERVATION CIGS, INDIAN RESERVA...
9/18/2010http://www.eecigs.com/
AD-16
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 71 09/28/2010 114238 74
Languages: Shopping Cart: now in your cart 0 items Currencies: US Dollar
Log In
Categories
Accessories
Candy
Chew/Snuff
Cigarettes->
Cigars
Lighters
Gift Certificates
Reviews
SKYDANCER ARE VERY SIMILAR TO MY PREMIUM CIGARETTES! I LOVED ..
Search
Enter search keywords here
Search Advanced Search
Shopping Cart
Your cart is empty.
Welcome to Tribal Discounts, your online one stop shop for your favorite tobacco products! Due to the PACT ACT Volume and status, Tribal Discounts is temporarily requiring customers to phone in all orders. We apologize for the problems and thank you for your patience. You can reach Tribal Discounts toll free at 1-888-889-9232. PACT ACT UPDATE 6/28/10: Injunction granted from PACT ACT!! We'll keep our customers informed on the latest information as we get it! We carry 100% American made tobacco from the top brands, delivered fresh to your door within 5-7 days of first time customers, and 3-5 days for continuous customers. Why wait 21 days to get harsh tobacco from Switzerland/EU/Israel? Duty free tobacco is more susceptible to search and seizure, and has to clear customs. Our tobacco is made, shipped, and delivered in the US, so there's no delay, no unauthorized mail, and there's no reporting! "Duty Free Cigarettes means that Duty tax is not charged for buying and importing up to 200 cigarettes per 21 days for Europe, or 1,200 cigarettes per 21 days for USA. Each carton of Duty Free Cigarettes is shipped separately to you. So. if you order 5 cartons, your order will be shipped to you in 5 separate packages, all sent at a few days interval and thus they will not arrive simultaneously and you will normally have a few days separating the arrival of your cigarettes." Sounds great if you plan ahead, but what about when you're running low? Do you really want to run to the convenience store and pay that hefty $60+ price tag for just one carton? Or what if you want more than just 5 cartons? Then Tribal Discounts can deliver from great customer service, help, shipping and more. Have you received a large tax bill from ordering cigarettes online? That doesn't happen withTribal Discounts. We're 100% native owned located on the Seneca Nation of Indians reservation, which means that you WON'T get a large tax bill stating that you owe anything. Try Tribal Discounts today, using check, money order, echeck, or even American Express. Call us Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST for any further questions!
1-888-889-9232
Featured Products
Page 1 of 2Online Discount Tobacco Store Premium Tax Free Cigarettes Tobacco Retail Store
9/18/2010http://www.tribaldiscounts.com/
AD-17
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 72 09/28/2010 114238 74
Smoke-It-Up.Com
About Us
Home Premium Cigars Cheap Cigars Little Cigars
Loose Tobacco Cigarettes
Crafts Contact Us Shipping
About Us
Thank you for your interest in Smoke-It-Up.com We are wholly owned and operated on Seneca Nation Sovereign Territory.
we are located approximately 20 miles south of Buffalo, New York.
Enter your starting address:
Street Address:
City:
State:
ZIP Code:
Sovereign means:1. We DO NOT report our sales to anyone! 2. Complete confidentiality. 3. No surprise tax bill in the mail. 4. The best prices for discount cigarettes online.
Our Company
We commenced operations in May of 1999. Since our inception, our company has taken
great pride in providing our customers with the best prices online, and the finest service and
confidentiality.
We look forward to servicing your needs and are always available to answer your
questions or concerns.
We accept checks, money orders, and all major credit cards only:
NASS Enterprises
551 Milestrip Road Irving, NY 14081
Page 1 of 1About Us
9/18/2010http://www.smoke-it-up.com/id6.html
AD-18
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 73 09/28/2010 114238 74
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 28th day of September, 2010, I caused the foregoing
Opening Brief For Appellants/Cross-Appellees to be filed with the Court in hard
copy and through the Court’s CM/ECF system. Counsel of record are registered
ECF users.
/s/ Michael P. Abate Michael P. Abate
Case: 10-3165 Document: 227 Page: 74 09/28/2010 114238 74