Case Name: HILL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, et al. v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF THE GULF COAST et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1975-06-30
Citations: 422 U.S. 937
Docket Number: No. 74-456
Parties: HILL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, et al. v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF THE GULF COAST et al.
Judges: Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 422
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
HILL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, et al. v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF THE GULF COAST et al.
No. 74-456.
Argued April 15, 1975 —
Decided June 30, 1975
John W. Odam, Executive Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellants. On the briefs were John L. Hill, Attorney General, pro "se, David M. Kendall, First Assistant Attorney General, and Elizabeth B. Levatino, First Special Assistant Attorney General.
Gerald M. Birnberg argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were James T. Evans and Michael Anthony Maness
David Crump filed a brief for Common Cause as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The parties to this case have informed us that the State of Texas has enacted the Political Funds Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1975, which will become effective on September 1, 1975. Section 11 of that Act substantially amends Art. 14.10 (b) (Supp. 1974-1975) of the Texas Election Code, the constitutionality of which is at issue in this appeal. Although the parties take the position that these amendments do not affect this case, we prefer to remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the recent amendments, rather "than render an unnecessary judgment on the validity of the constitutional views expressed by the District Court." White v. Regester, ante, p. 935.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated. The case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of the new legislation and for dismissal if the case is or becomes moot.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Tex. Const., Art. 3, § 39.