Whether the difference of opinion between the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit as to the constitutionality of 'organize' within the context of the Act is a matter requiring resolution by the Court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Anti-Riot Act (hereinafter “Act”) embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 2101 prohibits interstate travel or the use of the mechanisms of interstate commerce with intent to engage in a number of specified activities related to a riot. 18 U.S.C. § 2101. The prohibited conduct includes inciting, organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, urging, and the commission of any act of violence in furtherance of a riot. The Fourth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of the Act once certain language offensive to the First Amendment, namely promoting, encouraging, urging, is excised from the Act. The Ninth Circuit agreed though it also struck the word “organize” as offensive to the First Amendment. Therein lies the federal appellate circuit split of opinion. In petitioner’s case, the Fourth Circuit inferred that petitioner knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to the constitutional parts of the law and not to those parts rendered unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed petitioner’s single count felony conviction. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the difference of opinion between the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit as to the constitutionality of “organize” within the context of the Act is a matter requiring resolution by the Court. 2. Whether the constitutionally infirm provisions of the Act are severable sufficiently to sustain petitioner’s conviction under the Act. i