Opinion ID: 705140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: 33 The Brady Act violates neither the Tenth nor Thirteenth Amendment. Mack and Printz's Fifth Amendment vagueness challenge is not ripe. Accordingly, the district courts' injunctions prohibiting the United States from enforcing the disputed provisions of the Brady Act are vacated, and the district courts' judgments are reversed insofar as they invalidate portions of the Act. The portions of the cross-appeal in Mack and the appeal in Printz that challenge the district courts' rulings of severability are dismissed as moot; in all other respects the rulings challenged by Mack and Printz, are affirmed. The cases are remanded with instructions to dismiss the vagueness challenges as unripe. The United States is entitled to its costs on appeal. 34 No. 94-16940 (Appeal by United States) REVERSED. 35 No. 94-17002 (Cross-appeal by Mack) AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part. 36 No. 94-36193 (Appeal by Printz) AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part. 37 No. 95-35037 (Cross-appeal by United States) REVERSED. 38