od ied ▁in ▁the ▁U . S . ▁Constitution ▁and ▁could ▁have ▁emb old ened ▁other ▁states ▁to ▁challenge ▁the ▁sale ▁of ▁National ▁Lot tery ▁tick ets ▁elsewhere . ▁ ▁The ▁C oh ens ▁h ired ▁two ▁of ▁the ▁country ' s ▁top ▁law y ers ▁for ▁their ▁appeal : ▁U . S . ▁Senator ▁William ▁P ink ney ▁of ▁Maryland ▁and ▁recently ▁retired ▁U . S . ▁Represent ative ▁David ▁A . ▁Og den ▁of ▁New ▁York . ▁ ▁P ink ney ▁was ▁an ▁acquaint ance ▁of ▁the ▁C ohen ▁family ▁and ▁a ▁strong ▁pro ponent ▁of ▁the ▁necessary ▁and ▁proper ▁clause ▁and ▁the ▁doctrine ▁of ▁so ver eign ▁imm unity , ▁and ▁he ▁organized ▁a ▁public ▁relations ▁campaign ▁on ▁beh alf ▁of ▁the ▁federal ▁government ' s ▁powers ▁for ▁this ▁case . ▁ ▁Jud icial ▁history ▁The ▁state ▁courts ▁found ▁that ▁Virginia ▁law ▁prohib iting ▁lot ter ies ▁could ▁be ▁enfor ced , ▁not with standing ▁the ▁act ▁of ▁Congress ▁which ▁author ized ▁the ▁D . C . ▁lot tery . ▁The ▁C oh ens ▁appe aled ▁to ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court , ▁arg uing ▁that ▁their ▁conduct ▁was ▁protected ▁by ▁the ▁Act ▁of ▁Congress ▁author izing ▁the ▁D . C . ▁lot tery . ▁ ▁The ▁case ▁actually ▁produced ▁two ▁United ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁opinions , ▁published ▁together . ▁ ▁The ▁first ▁opinion , ▁containing ▁the ▁major ▁r ul ings ▁of ▁constitution al ▁and ▁historical ▁significance , ▁concerned ▁a ▁motion ▁to ▁dismiss ▁for ▁pur port ed ▁lack ▁of ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁juris diction