Date post: | 02-Mar-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | scribd-government-docs |
View: | 228 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 30
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
1/30
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 13- 1490
SARAHJ ANE BLUM; RYAN SHAPI RO; LANA LEHR; LAUREN GAZZOLA;I VER ROBERT J OHNSON, I I I ,
Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,
v.
ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , At t orney General ,
Def endant , Appel l ee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[ Hon. J oseph L. Taur o, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef or e
Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.
Rachel Meer opol , wi t h whom Al exi s Agat hocl eous, Cent er f orConst i t ut i onal Ri ght s, Al exander A. Rei ner t , Davi d Mi l t on, andHowar d Fr i edman wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.
Mat t hew M. Col l et t e, At t or ney, Appel l at e St af f , Ci vi lDi vi si on, wi t h whom St uar t F. Del er y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al ,Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, and Mi chael J ay Si nger ,At t or ney, Appel l at e St af f , Ci vi l Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or
appel l ee.Odet t e J . Wi l kens, Chr i st i ne L. Mot t , Chai r , Commi t t ee onAni mal Law, Br i an J . Kr ei swi r t h, Chai r , Commi t t ee on Ci vi l Ri ght s,and Kevi n L. Bar r on on br i ef f or The Associ at i on of t he Bar of t heCi t y of New Yor k, ami cus cur i ae i n suppor t of appel l ant s.
Mat t hew R. Segal , Sarah R. Wunsch, Davi d J . Nathanson, andWood & Nathanson, LLP on br i ef f or Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni onof Massachuset t s, Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on, and Nat i onalLawyer s Gui l d, ami ci cur i ae i n suppor t of appel l ant s.
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
2/30
Mar ch 7, 2014
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
3/30
LYNCH, Chief Judge. Sar ahj ane Bl um and f our ot her s ar e
commi t t ed and exper i enced ani mal r i ght act i vi st s. Al t hough t hey
have never been pr osecut ed or t hr eat ened wi t h pr osecut i on under t he
Ani mal Ent er pr i se Ter r or i sm Act ( "AETA" or " Act " ) , 18 U. S. C. 43,
whi ch cr i mi nal i zes "f or ce, vi ol ence, and t hr eat s i nvol vi ng ani mal
ent er pr i ses, " t hey sued t o obt ai n decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef
t hat t he st at ut e i s unconst i t ut i onal under t he Fi r st Amendment .
The di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t hei r compl ai nt under Rul e
12( b) ( 1) , f i ndi ng t hat t hese pl ai nt i f f s l acked st andi ng because
t hey have suf f er ed no i nj ur y i n f act as r equi r ed by Ar t i cl e I I I .
Bl um v. Hol der , 930 F. Supp. 2d 326, 337 ( D. Mass. 2013) . The
cour t hel d t hat pl ai nt i f f s "f ai l ed t o al l ege an obj ecti vel y
r easonabl e chi l l " on t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght s and, hence,
"f ai l ed t o est abl i sh an i nj ur y- i n- f act. " I d. at 335. We af f i r m.
I .
I n t hei r compl ai nt , pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hr ee
consti t ut i onal def ect s i n AETA. Fi r st , pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat ,
bot h on t hei r f ace and as- appl i ed, subsect i ons ( a) ( 2) ( A) and ( d) of
AETA ar e subst ant i al l y over br oad i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st
Amendment . Pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai n t hat subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) must be
r ead t o pr ohi bi t al l speech act i vi t y wi t h t he pur pose and ef f ect of
causi ng an ani mal ent er pr i se to l ose pr of i t s and t hat subsect i on
-3-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
4/30
( d) ( 3) must be r ead t o i mpose hi gher penal t i es on t he basi s of such
l oss. 1
Second, pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat , bot h on i t s f ace and as-
appl i ed, AETA di scr i mi nat es on t he basi s of cont ent and vi ewpoi nt ,
agai n i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment . Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat
t he Act , whi ch condi t i ons l i abi l i t y on act i ng wi t h "t he pur pose of
damagi ng or i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he oper at i ons of an ani mal
ent er pr i se, " 2 18 U. S. C. 43( a) , di scr i mi nat es on t he basi s of
cont ent by t ar get i ng cor e pol i t i cal speech t hat i mpact s t he
oper at i on of ani mal ent er pr i ses and on t he basi s of vi ewpoi nt by
pr i vi l egi ng speech t hat i s suppor t i ve of ani mal ent er pr i ses and
cr i mi nal i zi ng cer t ai n speech t hat i s opposed t o such ent er pr i ses.
1 I n t hei r compl ai nt , pl ai nt i f f s al l ege al so t hat AETAsubsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( C) i s over br oad. On appeal , pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m
onl y t hat subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( C) i s voi d f or vagueness.2 AETA def i nes "ani mal ent er pr i se" as f ol l ows:
( 1) t he t er m ani mal ent er pr i se means- -
( A) a commerci al or academi c ent erpr i se t hat usesor sel l s ani mal s or ani mal pr oduct s f or pr of i t ,f ood or f i ber pr oduct i on, agr i cul t ur e, educat i on,r esear ch, or t est i ng;
( B) a zoo, aquar i um, ani mal shel t er , pet st or e,
br eeder , f ur r i er , ci r cus, or r odeo, or ot her l awf ulcompet i t i ve ani mal event ; or
( C) any f ai r or si mi l ar event i nt ended t o advanceagr i cul t ur al ar t s and sci ences[ . ]
18 U. S. C. 43( d) ( 1) .
-4-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
5/30
Thi r d, pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat , bot h on i t s f ace and as-
appl i ed, AETA i s voi d f or vagueness. Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai n t hat
var i ous of t he Act ' s key t er ms are so i mpr eci se as t o pr event a
r easonabl e per son f r om under st andi ng what t he st at ut e pr ohi bi t s,
encour agi ng ar bi t r ar y or di scr i mi nat or y enf or cement .
None of t he pl ai nt i f f s expr ess any desi r e or i nt ent t o
damage or cause l oss of t angi bl e pr oper t y or har m t o per sons.
Pl ai nt i f f s do al l ege bot h t hat t hey have an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e
f ear of f ut ur e pr osecut i on and t hat t hey have pr esent l y ref r ai ned
f r om engagi ng i n cer t ai n acti vi t i es pr ot ected by the Fi r st
Amendment f or f ear AETA may be read t o cover t hei r act i vi t i es and
so subj ect t hem t o f ut ur e pr osecut i on. Bot h t hat f ear of f ut ur e
har mand t hat pr esent sel f - r est r ai nt , t hey say, have al r eady caused
t hem t o suf f er i nj ur y i n f act . They do not pl ead t hat t hey have
r ecei ved any i nf or mat i on t hat l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s have any
i nt ent i on of prosecut i ng t hem under AETA. I ndeed, t he Government
has di savowed, bef or e bot h t hi s cour t and t he di st r i ct cour t , 3 any
i nt ent i on t o pr osecut e pl ai nt i f f s f or what t hey say they wi sh t o
do, char acter i zi ng pl ai nt i f f s' var i ous AETA i nt er pr et at i ons as
3 I n t he memor andum i n suppor t of i t s mot i on t o di smi ss
bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , t he Gover nment st at ed f l at l y,"Pl ai nt i f f s have no concret e, act ual i nt ent t o engage i n speci f i cacti vi t y at a speci f i c t i me i n t he near f ut ur e t hat wi l l possi bl ysubj ect t hemt o t he AETA. " At or al ar gument bef or e t hi s cour t , t heGover nment i nsi st ed "t her e i s no i nt ent t o pr osecut e" pl ai nt i f f sf or t hei r st ated i nt ended conduct , whi ch t he Governmentchar act er i zed as "essent i al l y peacef ul pr ot est . "
-5-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
6/30
unr easonabl e. Pl ai nt i f f s do not cl ai mt hey have engaged i n or wi sh
t o engage i n act i vi t i es pl ai nl y f al l i ng wi t hi n t he cor e of t he
st at ut e, whi ch i s concer ned wi t h i nt ent i onal dest r uct i on of
pr oper t y and maki ng t r ue t hr eat s of deat h or ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y.
We descr i be what t hey do cl ai m.
Pl ai nt i f f Sar ahj ane Bl umal l eges t hat she woul d l i ke t o,
but has been det er r ed f r om act i ng t o, l awf ul l y i nvest i gat e
condi t i ons at t he Au Bon Canar d f oi e gr as f ar m i n Mi nnesot a, t o
cr eat e a document ar y f i l m, and t o publ i ci ze t he r esul t s of her
i nvest i gat i on. She woul d al so l i ke t o or gani ze l et t er - wr i t i ng and
pr ot est campai gns t o rai se publ i c awar eness and pr essur e l ocal
r est aur ant s t o st op ser vi ng f oi e gr as.
Pl ai nt i f f Ryan Shapi r o al l eges t hat he woul d l i ke t o
l awf ul l y document and f i l m ani mal r i ght s abuses but i s det er r ed
f r om doi ng so. Shapi r o cont i nues to engage i n l eaf l et i ng, publ i c
speaki ng, and campai gn work, but f ear s t hat t hese met hods of
advocacy ar e l ess ef f ect i ve t han i nvest i gat i ng under l yi ng i ndust r y
conduct .
Pl ai nt i f f Lana Lehr al l eges t hat , but f or AETA, she woul d
at t end l awf ul , peacef ul ant i - f ur pr ot est s, br i ng r abbi t s wi t h her
t o r est aur ant s t hat ser ve r abbi t meat , and di st r i but e l i t er at ur e at
event s at t ended by r abbi t br eeder s. Lehr al l eges t hat , at pr esent ,
she l i mi t s her ani mal r i ght s advocacy t o l et t er - wr i t i ng campai gns,
pet i t i ons, and conf er ences.
-6-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
7/30
Pl ai nt i f f I ver Rober t J ohnson, I I I , al l eges t hat he has
been unabl e t o engage i n ef f ect i ve ani mal r i ght s advocacy because
ot her s ar e chi l l ed f r om engagi ng i n pr ot est s out of f ear of
pr osecut i on under AETA. J ohnson does not al l ege t hat he has
r ef r ai ned f r om l awf ul speech act i vi t y on t he basi s of such f ear .
Fi nal l y, pl ai nt i f f Laur en Gazzol a al l eges t hat she i s
chi l l ed f r om maki ng st at ement s shor t of i nci t ement i n suppor t of
i l l egal conduct . Gazzol a was convi ct ed i n 2004 under AETA' s
pr edecessor st at ut e, t he Ani mal Ent er pr i se Pr ot ect i on Act ( "AEPA") ,
f or maki ng t r ue t hr eat s agai nst i ndi vi dual s and f or pl anni ng and
execut i ng i l l egal act i vi t i es as a member of t he Uni t ed St at es
br anch of St op Hunt i ngdon Ani mal Cr uel t y. Her convi ct i ons wer e
uphel d on appeal . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ful l mer , 584 F. 3d 132, 157
( 3d Ci r . 2009) .
I I .
A. St at ut or y Fr amewor k
I n 1992, Congr ess enact ed AEPA, whi ch cr i mi nal i zed t he
use of i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce f or i nt ent i onal physi cal
di sr upt i on of t he oper at i ons of an ani mal ent er pr i se. I n 2002,
Congr ess amended AEPA, i ncr easi ng t he avai l abl e penal t i es. I n
2006, i n r esponse t o "an i ncr ease i n t he number and t he sever i t y of
cr i mi nal act s and i nt i mi dat i on agai nst t hose engaged i n ani mal
ent er pr i ses, " 152 Cong. Rec. H8590- 01 ( dai l y ed. Nov. 13, 2006)
-7-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
8/30
( st at ement of Rep. Sensenbrenner ) , Congress amended AEPA agai n,
r enami ng i t AETA.
I n cont r ast t o AEPA, AETA does not speci f i cal l y l i mi t i t s
scope t o physi cal di sr upt i on. AETA al so cr i mi nal i zes pl aci ng a
per son i n f ear of i nj ur y or deat h r egar dl ess of economi c damage. 4
18 U. S. C. 43( a) ( 2) ( B) . AETA makes cl ear t hat t hr eat s of
vandal i sm, har assment , and i nt i mi dat i on agai nst t hi r d par t i es t hat
ar e r el at ed t o or associ at ed wi t h ani mal ent er pr i ses ar e t hemsel ves
subst ant i ve vi ol at i ons of t he Act . I d. Fi nal l y, AETA makes
avai l abl e i ncreased penal t i es. I d. 43( b) .
AETA i s codi f i ed under t he t i t l e "For ce, vi ol ence, and
t hr eat s i nvol vi ng ani mal ent er pr i ses. " I d. 43. The Act consi st s
of f i ve subsect i ons, f our of whi ch ar e r el evant her e. Subsect i on
( a) of t he Act def i nes " Of f ense":
( a) Of f ense. - - Whoever t r avel s i n i nt er st at eor f orei gn commerce, or uses or causes t o beused t he mai l or any f aci l i t y of i nt er st at e orf orei gn commerce -
( 1) f or t he pur pose of damagi ng ori nt er f er i ng wi t h t he oper at i ons of anani mal ent er pr i se; and
( 2) i n connect i on wi t h such pur pose -
( A) i nt ent i onal l y damages orcauses t he l oss of any real or
per sonal pr oper t y ( i ncl udi ngani mal s or r ecor ds) used by an
4 Bef or e enactment of AETA, f eder al of f i ci al s ut i l i zed, i nt eral i a, t he i nt er st at e st al ki ng st at ut e, 18 U. S. C. 2261A, t o pol i cesuch conduct . See Ful l mer , 584 F. 3d at 138.
-8-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
9/30
ani mal ent er pr i se, or any real orper sonal pr oper t y of a per son orent i t y havi ng a connect i on t o,r el at i onshi p wi t h, or t r ansact i onswi t h an ani mal ent er pr i se;
( B) i nt ent i onal l y pl aces a per soni n r easonabl e f ear of t he deat hof , or ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y t ot hat person, a member of t hei mmedi at e f ami l y ( as def i ned i nsect i on 115) of t hat per son, or aspouse or i nt i mat e par t ner of t hatperson by a cour se of conducti nvol vi ng t hr eat s, act s ofvandal i sm, proper t y damage,cr i mi nal t r espass, har assment , ori nt i mi dat i on; or
( C) conspi r es or at t empt s t o doso; shal l be puni shed as pr ovi dedf or i n subsect i on ( b) .
I d. 43( a) .
Subsect i on ( b) sets out t he penal t i es. Of si gni f i cance
her e, AETA i ndexes avai l abl e penal t i es t o whet her and i n some
i nst ances t o what extent t he of f endi ng conduct r esul t s i n "economi c
damage, " " bodi l y i nj ur y, " " deat h, " or a "r easonabl e f ear of ser i ous
bodi l y i nj ur y or deat h. " I d. 43( b) .
Subsect i on ( d) i n t ur n def i nes var i ous key t er ms. 5 Most
i mport ant here, subsect i on ( d) def i nes "economi c damage" as used i n
t he penal t i es subsect i on as f ol l ows:
( 3) t he t erm "economi c damage" - -
5 Subsect i on ( c) of t he Act est abl i shes a scheme f orr est i t ut i on. 18 U. S. C. 43( c).
-9-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
10/30
( A) means t he r epl acement cost s of l ostor damaged pr opert y or r ecor ds, t hecost s of r epeat i ng an i nt er r upt ed ori nval i dat ed exper i ment , t he l oss ofpr of i t s, or i ncreased cost s, i ncl udi ngl osses and i ncr eased cost s r esul t i ng
f r om t hr eat s, act s or vandal i sm,pr opert y damage, t r espass, harassment ,or i nt i mi dat i on t aken agai nst a per sonor ent i t y on account of t hat per son' sor ent i t y' s connecti on t o, r el at i onshi pwi t h, or t r ansact i ons wi t h t he ani malent er pr i se; but
( B) does not i ncl ude any l awf uleconomi c di sr upt i on ( i ncl udi ng a l awf ulboycot t ) t hat resul t s f rom l awf ulpubl i c, gover nment al , or busi nessr eact i on t o t he di scl osur e ofi nf or mat i on about an ani malent er pr i se[ . ]
I d. 43( d) ( 3) .
Last , subsect i on ( e) of t he Act ar t i cul at es t wo r el evant
r ul es of const r uct i on:
( e) Rul es of const r uct i on. - - Not hi ng i n t hi ssect i on shal l be const r ued -
( 1) t o pr ohi bi t any expr essi ve conduct( i ncl udi ng peacef ul pi cket i ng or ot herpeacef ul demonst r at i on) pr ot ect ed f r oml egal pr ohi bi t i on by t he Fi r stAmendment t o t he Const i t ut i on; [ or ]
( 2) t o cr eat e new r emedi es f ori nt er f er ence wi t h act i vi t i es pr ot ectedby the f r ee speech or f r ee exer ci secl auses of t he Fi r st Amendment t o t he
Const i t ut i on, r egar dl ess of t he poi ntof vi ew expr essed, or t o l i mi t anyexi st i ng l egal r emedi es f or suchi nt er f er ence[ . ]
-10-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
11/30
I d. 43( e) . 6
B. Pr ocedur al Hi st or y
Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hi s acti on i n t he Massachuset t s
Di st r i ct Cour t on December 15, 2011. On March 9, 2012, t he
Gover nment f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss under Rul e 12( b) ( 1) f or l ack
of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, ar gui ng l ack of st andi ng, and under
Rul e 12( b) ( 6) f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. The di st r i ct cour t on
March 18, 2013 gr ant ed t he Government ' s mot i on under Rul e 12( b) ( 1) .
Bl um, 930 F. Supp. 2d at 335. The cour t hel d t hat pl ai nt i f f s
"f ai l ed t o al l ege an obj ecti vel y r easonabl e chi l l " on t hei r Fi r st
Amendment r i ght s and, hence, " f ai l ed t o est abl i sh an i nj ur y- i n-
f act " as r equi r ed by Ar t i cl e I I I . I d.
I I I .
Thi s cour t r evi ews de novo a di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of a
mot i on t o di smi ss f or l ack of st andi ng. McI nni s- Mi senor v. Me.
Med. Ct r . , 319 F. 3d 63, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . For pur poses of
r evi ew, we accept as t r ue al l mat er i al al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt
and const r ue t hem i n pl ai nt i f f s' f avor . Mangual v. Rot ger - Sabat ,
317 F. 3d 45, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . However , " t hi s t enet does not
appl y t o ' st at ement s i n t he compl ai nt t hat mer el y of f er l egal
6 Subsect i on ( 3) al so ar t i cul at es a t hi r d r ul e ofconst r uct i on accor di ng t o whi ch AETA shal l not be const r ued " t opr ovi de excl usi ve cr i mi nal penal t i es or ci vi l r emedi es wi t h r espectt o t he conduct pr ohi bi t ed by thi s act i on, or t o pr eempt St at e orl ocal l aws that may pr ovi de such penal t i es or r emedi es. " 18 U. S. C. 43(e)(3).
-11-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
12/30
concl usi ons couched as f act s or ar e t hr eadbar e or concl usory, ' " Ai r
Sunshi ne, I nc. v. Car l , 663 F. 3d 27, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng
Sot oTor r es v. Frat i cel l i , 654 F. 3d 153, 158 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) , or
t o al l egat i ons so "specul at i ve t hat t hey f ai l t o cross ' t he l i ne
bet ween t he concl usor y and t he f act ual , ' " i d. ( quot i ng
Peal ber t Rosa v. For t uoBur set , 631 F. 3d 592, 595 ( 1st Ci r .
2011) ) .
A. The Law of St andi ng f or Fi rs t Amendment Pre- Enf orcementSui t s
"' The par t y i nvoki ng f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on bear s t he
bur den of est abl i shi ng' st andi ng. " Cl apper v. Amnest y I nt ' l USA,
133 S. Ct . 1138, 1148 ( 2013) ( quot i ng Luj an v. Def enders of
Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 561 ( 1992) ) .
Ar t i cl e I I I res t r i ct s a f ederal cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i on t o
cer t ai n "Cases" and "Cont r over si es. " U. S. Const . ar t . I I I . "' One
el ement of t he case- or - cont r over sy r equi r ement ' i s t hat pl ai nt i f f s
' must est abl i sh t hat t hey have st andi ng t o sue. ' " Cl apper , 133 S.
Ct . at 1146 ( quot i ng Rai nes v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818 ( 1997) ) .
Thi s r equi r ement " i s f ounded i n concer n about t he proper - - and
pr oper l y l i mi t ed - - r ol e of t he cour t s i n a democr at i c soci et y. "
Summer s v. Ear t h I sl and I nst . , 555 U. S. 488, 492- 93 ( 2009) ( quot i ng
War t h v. Sel di n, 422 U. S. 490, 498 ( 1975) ) .
To show st andi ng, pl ai nt i f f s must " ' al l ege[ ] such a
per sonal st ake i n t he out come of t he cont r over sy' as t o war r ant
[ t hei r ] i nvocat i on of f eder al - cour t j ur i sdi ct i on and t o j ust i f y
-12-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
13/30
exer ci se of t he cour t ' s r emedi al power s on [ t hei r ] behal f . " War t h,
422 U. S. at 498- 99 ( quot i ng Baker v. Car r , 369 U. S. 186, 204
( 1962) ) . As Cl apper v. Amnest y I nt ' l USA, 133 S. Ct . at 1147,
not es, i n al l cases, t o establ i sh Ar t i cl e I I I standi ng:
[ Pl ai nt i f f s must show] an i nj ur y [ t hat i s]"concret e, par t i cul ar i zed, and act ual ori mmi nent ; f ai r l y t r aceabl e t o t he chal l engedact i on; and r edr essabl e by a f avor abl er ul i ng. " Monsant o Co. v. Geer t son Seed Far ms,[ ] 130 S. Ct . 2743, 2752[ ] ( 2010) . "Al t houghi mmi nence i s concededl y a somewhat el ast i cconcept , i t cannot be st r et ched beyond i t spur pose, whi ch i s t o ensur e t hat t he al l egedi nj ur y i s not t oo specul at i ve f or Ar t i cl e I I Ipur poses - - t hat t he i nj ur y i s cer t ai nl yi mpendi ng. " [ Luj an, 504 U. S. at ] 565 n. 2( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thus, wehave r epeat edl y r ei t er at ed t hat " t hr eat enedi nj ur y must be cer t ai nl y i mpendi ng t oconst i t ut e i nj ur y i n f act , " and t hat"[ a] l l egat i ons of possi bl e f ut ur e i nj ur y" ar enot suf f i ci ent . Whi t mor e [ v. Ar kansas] , 595U. S. [ 149, ] 158 [ ( 1990) ] ( emphasi s added;i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) [ . ]
I d. ( s i xt h al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . 7
Thi s cour t has sai d t hat , i n chal l enges t o a st at e
st atut e under t he Fi r st Amendment :
[ T] wo t ypes of i nj ur i es may conf er Ar t i cl e I I Ist andi ng wi t hout necessi t at i ng t hat t hechal l enger act ual l y under go a cr i mi nalpr osecut i on. The f i r st i s when "t he pl ai nt i f fhas al l eged an i nt ent i on t o engage i n a cour seof conduct ar guabl y af f ect ed wi t h a
7 To be cl ear , bef ore Cl apper , t he Supr eme Cour t had i mposeda "cer t ai nl y i mpendi ng" st andar d i n t he cont ext of a Fi r stAmendment pr e- enf orcement chal l enge t o a cr i mi nal st atut e. SeeBabbi t t v. Uni t ed Far m Wor ker s Nat ' l Uni on, 442 U. S. 289, 298( 1979) .
-13-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
14/30
const i t ut i onal i nt er est , but pr oscri bed by[ t he] st at ut e, and t her e exi st s a cr edi bl et hr eat of pr osecut i on. " [ Babbi t t v. Uni t edFar m Wor ker s Nat ' l Uni on, 442 U. S. 289, 298( 1979) ] . . . . The second t ype of i nj ur y i swhen a pl ai nt i f f " i s chi l l ed f r om exer ci s i ng
her r i ght t o f r ee expr essi on or f or goesexpr essi on i n or der t o avoi d enf or cementconsequences. " N. H. Ri ght t o Li f e [ Pol i t i calAct i on Comm. v. Gar dner] , 99 F. 3d [ 8, ] 13[ ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ] [ . ]
Mangual , 317 F. 3d at 56- 57 ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) .
The Supreme Cour t has l ong hel d t hat as t o both sor t s of
cl ai ms of har m, " [ a] pl ai nt i f f who chal l enges a st at ut e must
demonst r at e a r eal i st i c danger of sust ai ni ng a di r ect i nj ur y as a
r esul t of t he st at ut e' s oper at i on or enf or cement . " Babbi t t , 442
U. S. at 298. "Al l egat i ons of a subj ecti ve ' chi l l ' ar e not an
adequat e subst i t ut e f or a cl ai mof speci f i c pr esent obj ect i ve har m
or a t hr eat of speci f i c f ut ur e har m. " Lai r d v. Tat um, 408 U. S. 1,
13- 14 ( 1972) .
Most r ecent l y, Cl apper emphasi zed t hat " [ o] ur st andi ng
i nqui r y has been especi al l y r i gor ous when r eachi ng t he mer i t s of
t he di sput e woul d f orce us t o deci de whether an act i on t aken by one
of t he ot her t wo br anches of t he Federal Government was
unconst i t ut i onal . " 133 S. Ct . at 1147 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )
( quot i ng Rai nes, 521 U. S. at 819- 20) . We appl y t hat st andar d her e.
I n Cl apper , t he Supr eme Cour t addr essed t he Ar t i cl e I I I
st andi ng r equi r ement f or Fi r st Amendment and Four t h Amendment
chal l enges t o a f eder al st at ut e. Ther e, t he Cour t addr essed a pr e-
-14-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
15/30
enf orcement chal l enge under t he Fi r st Amendment by j our nal i st s,
at t or neys, and ot her s t o t he new For ei gn I nt el l i gence Sur vei l l ance
Act . 8 I d. at 1146. That Act aut hor i zed t he Government t o seek
per mi ssi on f r om t he For ei gn I nt el l i gence Sur vei l l ance Cour t t o
el ect r oni cal l y sur vey t he communi cat i ons of non- U. S. per sons
l ocat ed abr oad, wi t hout demonst r at i ng pr obabl e cause t hat t he
t ar get of t he sur vei l l ance i s a f or ei gn power or agent t her eof and
wi t hout speci f yi ng t he nat ur e and l ocat i on of each of t he
f aci l i t i es or pl aces at whi ch t he sur vei l l ance wi l l t ake pl ace.
See i d. at 1156. The pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt was not of a t hr eat of
enf or cement of a cr i mi nal st at ut e agai nst t hemwhi ch woul d l ead t o
a chi l l i ng of Fi r st Amendment act i vi t y, but r at her of a mor e di r ect
chi l l i ng of speech and i nvasi on of t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght s
when t he Gover nment exer ci sed t hi s new aut hor i t y. Unl i ke t hi s
case, Cl apper al so r ai sed t hr eat s t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' per sonal
pr i vacy i nt er est s.
The Cl apper t r i al cour t had hel d t he pl ai nt i f f s l acked
st andi ng; t he Second Ci r cui t di sagr eed; and t he Supr eme Cour t
r ever sed. I d. at 1146. The Supr eme Cour t f i r st hel d t hat t he
Second Ci r cui t had er r ed as a mat t er of l aw i n hol di ng t hat t he
8 "Pr e- enf or cement " i s a t er mused i n at l east t wo cont ext s.I n one, as i n Cl apper , t he sui t i s br ought i mmedi at el y uponenact ment of t he st at ut e, bef or e t her e has been an oppor t uni t y t oenf or ce. I n t he ot her , as her e, t he l aw has been on t he books f orsome year s, and t here have been char ges br ought under i t i n othercases, but t he pl ai nt i f f s have not been pr osecut ed under i t and sayt hey f ear pr osecut i on.
-15-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
16/30
pl ai nt i f f s coul d est abl i sh t he needed i nj ur y f or st andi ng mer el y by
showi ng an "obj ect i vel y r easonabl e l i kel i hood t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s'
communi cat i ons are bei ng or wi l l be moni t or ed under t he [Act ] . "
Amnest y I nt ' l USA v. Cl apper , 638 F. 3d 118, 134 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) .
The Cour t hel d t hat t he Second Ci r cui t ' s "obj ect i vel y r easonabl e
l i kel i hood" st andar d was i nconsi st ent wi t h " t he wel l - est abl i shed
r equi r ement t hat t hr eat ened i nj ur y must be ' cer t ai nl y i mpendi ng. ' "
Cl apper , 133 S. Ct . at 1147 ( quot i ng Whi t mor e, 495 U. S. at 158) .
I t i s not enough, t he Cour t hel d, t o al l ege a subj ect i ve f ear of
i nj ur i ous gover nment act i on, even i f t hat subj ect i ve f ear i s " not
f anci f ul , i r r at i onal , or cl ear l y unr easonabl e. " 9 I d. at 1151
( quot i ng Amnest y I nt ' l USA v. Cl apper , 667 F. 3d 163, 180 ( 2d Ci r .
2011) ( Raggi , J . , di ssent i ng f r om deni al of r ehear i ng en banc) ) .
Cl apper al so r ej ected pl ai nt i f f s' cont ent i on t hat
"pr esent cost s and bur dens t hat are based on a f ear of
sur vei l l ance" amount ed t o a cogni zabl e i nj ur y. I d. I t reasoned
t hat pl ai nt i f f s " cannot manuf act ur e st andi ng mer el y by i nf l i ct i ng
har mon t hemsel ves based on t hei r f ear s of hypot het i cal f ut ur e har m
t hat i s not cer t ai nl y i mpendi ng. " I d.
9 As one t r eat i se has not ed, Cl apper " si gnal ed a r enewedcaut i on about f i ndi ng i nj ur y i n f act based on pr obabi l i st i c i nj ur yand t he r easonabl e concer ns t hat f l ow f r omi t . " Ri char d H. Fal l on,J r . , J ohn F. Manni ng, Dani el J . Mel t zer , & Davi d L. Shapi r o, Har tand Wechsl er ' s The Federal Cour t s and t he Federal Syst em9 ( 6t h ed.Supp. 2013) . The t r eat i se di d not suggest t he Cl apper i nj ur yst andar d was i nappl i cabl e t o chal l enges t o cr i mi nal st at ut es.
-16-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
17/30
I n r ej ect i ng t he Second Ci r cui t ' s "obj ect i vel y r easonabl e
l i kel i hood" st andard, t he Supr eme Cour t may have adopt ed a more
st r i ngent i nj ur y st andar d f or st andi ng t han t hi s cour t has
pr evi ousl y empl oyed i n pr e- enf or cement chal l enges on Fi r st
Amendment gr ounds t o st ate st atut es.
Bef or e t he deci si on i n Cl apper , t hi s ci r cui t appl i ed an
"obj ect i vel y r easonabl e" f ear of pr osecut i on i nj ur y st andar d i n
Fi r st Amendment pr e- enf or cement act i ons, at l east as t o st at e
statutes. 10 See Nat ' l Or g. f or Mar r i age v. McKee, 649 F. 3d 34, 48
( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Ram r ez v. Snchez Ramos, 438 F. 3d 92, 99 ( 1st
Ci r . 2006) ; Mangual , 317 F. 3d at 57; R. I . Ass' n of Real t or s, I nc.
v. Whi t ehouse, 199 F. 3d 26, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ; N. H. Ri ght t o Li f e,
99 F. 3d at 14.
I n assessi ng t he r i sk of pr osecut i on as t o par t i cul ar
f act s, wei ght must be gi ven t o t he l ack of a hi st or y of enf or cement
of t he chal l enged st at ut e to l i ke f act s, t hat no enf or cement has
been t hr eat ened as t o pl ai nt i f f s' pr oposed act i vi t i es. Par t i cul ar
wei ght must be gi ven to t he Government di savowal of any i nt ent i on
t o pr osecut e on t he basi s of t he Gover nment ' s own i nt er pr et at i on of
t he stat ut e and i t s r ej ect i on of pl ai nt i f f s ' i nt er pr et at i on as
10 I n Ram r ez v. Snchez Ramos, 438 F. 3d 92, 98 ( 1st Ci r .2006) , we sai d t hat t o const i t ut e a cogni zabl e i nj ur y, bot h f ear ofpr osecut i on and chi l l i ng "r equi r e[ ] a credi bl e t hr eat - - as opposedt o a hypot het i cal possi bi l i t y - - t hat t he chal l enged st at ut e wi l lbe enf or ced t o t he pl ai nt i f f ' s det r i ment i f she exer ci ses her Fi r stAmendment r i ght s. "
-17-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
18/30
unr easonabl e. The Gover nment has af f i r mat i vel y r epr esent ed t hat i t
does not i nt end t o pr osecut e such conduct because i t does not t hi nk
i t i s pr ohi bi t ed by t he st at ut e. 11 See Hol der v. Humani t ar i an Law
Pr oj ect ( "HLP") , 130 S. Ct . 2705, 2717 ( 2010) ( hol di ng t hat
pl ai nt i f f s f ace a credi bl e t hr eat of pr osecut i on wher e t her e i s a
hi st or y of pr osecut i on under t he chal l enged l aw and " [ t ] he
Gover nment has not ar gued . . . t hat pl ai nt i f f s wi l l not be
pr osecut ed i f t hey do what t hey say they wi sh t o do" ( emphasi s
added) ) ; Babbi t t , 442 U. S. at 302 ( "Mor eover , t he St at e has not
di savowed any i nt ent i on of i nvoki ng t he cr i mi nal penal t y pr ovi si on
agai nst [ ent i t i es] t hat [ vi ol at e t he st at ut e] . " ( emphasi s added) ) ;
N. H. Ri ght t o Li f e, 99 F. 3d at 17 ( " I ndeed, t he def endant s have not
onl y r ef used t o di savow [ t he st at ut e] but t hei r def ense of i t
i ndi cat es t hat t hey wi l l some day enf or ce i t . " ) ; see al so Mangual ,
317 F. 3d at 58 ( act ual t hr eat of pr osecut i on) .
Thi s Government di savowal i s even mor e potent when t he
chal l enged st at ut e cont ai ns, as her e, expl i ci t r ul es of
const r uct i on pr ot ect i ng Fi r st Amendment r i ght s, whi ch i n themsel ves
woul d i nhi bi t pr osecut i on of Fi r st Amendment act i vi t i es. I n
Cl apper , t he Cour t credi t ed t he speci f i c rul es of const r uct i on
cont ai ned i n t he st atut e meant t o pr otect Four t h Amendment r i ght s
11 We t hi nk t hat Cl apper does not cal l i nt o quest i on t heassumpt i on t hat t he st at e wi l l enf or ce i t s own non- mor i bundcr i mi nal l aws, absent evi dence t o t he cont r ar y. See N. H. Ri ght t oLi f e, 99 F. 3d at 15. That i s not t he i ssue her e, wher e t heGover nment i t sel f says t he st at ut e does not appl y.
-18-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
19/30
i n assessi ng t he l ack of an i mpendi ng i nj ur y. 133 S. Ct . at
1145 n. 3.
I n Cl apper ' s anal ysi s of i nj ur y, i t consi der ed t hat t he
f ear of moni t or i ng of communi cat i on r est ed on what t he Cour t cal l ed
a hi ghl y specul at i ve set of assumpt i ons. Thi s i ncl uded an
assumpt i on t hat t he Government woul d use t he new sur vei l l ance
st at ut e rat her t han ot her avai l abl e means t o achi eve t he same
ends. 12 I d. Her e, as wel l , pl ai nt i f f s' f ear of pr osecut i on and
pur por t ed cor r espondi ng r el uct ance t o engage i n expr essi ve act i vi t y
r est on specul at i on. I n f act , pr osecut i on under AETA has been r ar e
and has addr essed act i ons t aken t hat ar e di f f er ent f r om t hose
pl ai nt i f f s pr opose t o under t ake. 13 For i t s par t , t he Gover nment has
di savowed any i nt ent i on t o pr osecut e pl ai nt i f f s f or t hei r st at ed
i nt ended conduct because, i n i t s vi ew, t hat conduct i s not cover ed
by AETA.
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat Cl apper has no bear i ng on i nj ur y
and st andi ng wi t h r espect t o t hi s Fi r st Amendment pr e- enf orcement
chal l enge because t hi s chal l enge i s t o a cr i mi nal st at ut e, and
12 For t hi s r eason, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat , i n addi t i ont o bei ng " t oo specul at i ve, " Cl apper , 133 S. Ct . at 1143,pl ai nt i f f s' al l eged i nj ur y was not "f ai r l y t r aceabl e" t o t hechal l enged l aw, i d. at 1149. We do not r each t he f ai r l y t r aceabl e
ground.
13 I n addi t i on t o Uni t ed St at es v. Buddenber g ( "Buddenber gI I " ) , No. CR- 09- 00263 RMW, 2010 WL 2735547 ( N. D. Cal . J ul y 12,2010) , di scussed l at er , pl ai nt i f f s ci t e i n t hei r compl ai nt t wo AETApr osecut i ons, bot h f or t he unl awf ul r el ease of f ar m ani mal s andr el at ed vandal i sm.
-19-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
20/30
Cl apper di d not i nvol ve a cr i mi nal st at ut e. Cl apper , however ,
dr aws no such di st i nct i on and i s expr essl y concer ned wi t h Ar t i cl e
I I I i nj ur y r equi r ement s. Pl ai nt i f f s ' posi t i on i s i nconsi stent wi t h
f oot note 5 of Cl apper , i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat
pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai med i nj ur y was t oo specul at i ve even under t he
pot ent i al l y mor e l eni ent "subst ant i al r i sk" of har m st andar d t he
Cour t has appl i ed i n some cases. I d. at 1150 n. 5 ( quot i ng Monsant o
Co. , 130 S. Ct . at 275455) .
Cl apper acknowl edged t hat t he Cour t ' s "cases do not
uni f or ml y r equi r e pl ai nt i f f s t o demonst r at e t hat i t i s l i t er al l y
cer t ai n t hat t he har ms t hey i dent i f y wi l l come about . " 133 S. Ct .
at 1150 n. 5. I nvol vi ng a chal l enge t o a deci si on of " t he pol i t i cal
br anches i n t he f i el ds of i nt el l i gence gat her i ng and f or ei gn
af f ai r s, " i d. at 1147, Cl apper l ef t open t he quest i on whet her t he
pr evi ousl y- appl i ed "subst ant i al r i sk" st andar d i s mat er i al l y
di f f er ent f r om t he "cl ear i ng i mpendi ng" r equi r ement . I d. As one
exampl e, t he Cour t ci t ed Babbi t t , whi ch i nvol ved a Fi r st Amendment ,
pr e- enf or cement chal l enge t o a cr i mi nal st at ut e. I d. Babbi t t ,
unl i ke t hi s case, i nvol ved a r eal i st i c t hr eat of enf or cement wher e
t he st at e had not di savowed any i nt ent i on t o pr osecut e. 442 U. S.
at 302; see al so HLP, 130 S. Ct . at 2717; Vi r gi ni a v. Am. Book
Sel l er s Ass' n, I nc. , 484 U. S. 383, 393 ( 1988) .
-20-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
21/30
We rej ect pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument s t hat Cl apper has no
appl i cat i on her e. 14 As Cl apper hel ps make cl ear , pl ai nt i f f s'
al l eged i nj ur i es ar e "t oo specul at i ve f or Ar t i cl e I I I pur poses" and
no pr osecut i on i s even cl ose t o i mpendi ng. 133 S. Ct . at 1147
( quot i ng Luj an, 504 U. S. at 565 n. 2) .
B. Pl ai nt i f f s' Pr of f er ed St at ut or y I nt er pr et at i on Does NotMake Out t he Needed I nj ury
I n addi t i on, we f i nd t hat pl ai nt i f f s have not est abl i shed
t he needed degr ee of i nj ur y t o est abl i sh st andi ng based on t hei r
pr of f er ed i nt er pr et at i ons of t he pr ovi si ons of t he st at ut e. Thi s
i s so even under t he pot ent i al l y mor e l eni ent "subst ant i al r i sk"
st andar d or even t he "obj ect i vel y r easonabl e" st andar d. See
Ram r ez, 438 F. 3d at 98- 99 ( hol di ng t hat pl ai nt i f f ' s f ear was not
"obj ect i vel y reasonabl e" when she "never st at ed an i nt ent i on t o
engage i n any act i vi t y that coul d r easonabl y be const r ued t o f al l
wi t hi n t he conf i nes of t he [ chal l enged l aw] " ) . The Uni t ed St at es
ar gues t hat " t he st at ue si mpl y does not pr ohi bi t t he act i ons
14 To t he ext ent pl ai nt i f f s may i nt end t o engage i n cl ear l ypr oscr i bed conduct , t hey l ack st andi ng t o asser t a vagueness cl ai m.See HLP, 130 S. Ct . at 2718- 19 ( "We consi der whether a st atut e i svague as appl i ed t o t he par t i cul ar f act s at i ssue, f or ' [ a]pl ai nt i f f who engages i n some conduct t hat i s cl ear l y pr oscr i bed
cannot compl ai n of t he vagueness of t he l aw as appl i ed t o t heconduct of ot her s. ' " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Hof f manEst at es v. Fl i psi de, Hof f man Est at es, I nc. , 455 U. S. 489, 495( 1982) ) ) ; Whi t i ng v. Town of West er l y, 942 F. 2d 18, 22 ( 1st Ci r .1991) ( no st andi ng wher e pl ai nt i f f ' s pr oposed conduct i s cl ear l ypr oscr i bed) ; Ei cher v. Uni t ed St at es, 774 F. 2d 27, 29 ( 1st Ci r .1985) ( same) .
-21-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
22/30
pl ai nt i f f s i nt end t o t ake, " so t hey can have no l egi t i mat e f ear of
pr osecut i on.
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed 1) i n hol di ng
t hat t hei r expansi ve i nt er pr et at i on of subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) , t he
dest r uct i on of pr oper t y subsect i on, was unr easonabl e and, hence,
t hat t hei r f ear of pr osecut i on under t hat subsect i on was
unr easonabl e as wel l ; 2) i n f ai l i ng t o r ecogni ze pl ai nt i f f Laur en
Gazzol a' s st andi ng t o chal l enge subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( B) on t he basi s
of her woul d- be i nt ent i on t o advocat e but not i nci t e i l l egal
conduct; and 3) i n f ai l i ng t o credi t t hei r cl ai m t hat subsecti on
( a) ( 2) ( C) , t he conspi r acy subsect i on, coul d r easonabl y be
i nt er pr et ed as cr i mi nal i zi ng any at t empt t o i nt er f er e wi t h t he
operat i ons of an ani mal ent erpr i se. We addr ess each argument i n
t ur n.
1. Subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A)
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) of t he Act i s
subst ant i al l y over br oad because i t must be i nt er pr et ed as
cri mi nal i zi ng any expr essi ve acti vi t y t hat i nt ent i onal l y r esul t s i n
t he l oss of pr of i t s t o an ani mal ent er pr i se, even i n t he absence of
damage t o or l oss of pr oper t y used, and wi l l be so pr osecut ed. The
Uni t ed St at es di savows t hat r eadi ng.
Subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) pr ohi bi t s t he use of i nt er st at e or
f or ei gn commer ce f or t he pur pose of damagi ng or i nt er f er i ng wi t h
-22-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
23/30
t he oper at i ons of an ani mal ent er pr i se wher e, i n connect i on wi t h
t hat pur pose, one:
[ I ] nt ent i onal l y damages or causes t he l oss ofany r eal or per sonal pr oper t y ( i ncl udi ng
ani mal s or r ecor ds) used by an ani malent er pr i se, or any r eal or per sonal pr oper t yof a per son or ent i t y havi ng a connect i on t o,r el at i onshi p wi t h, or t r ansact i ons wi t h anani mal ent er pr i se.
18 U. S. C. 43( a) ( 2) ( A) . Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat a) " per sonal
pr oper t y" i ncl udes l ost pr of i t s, and t her ef or e b) t he Act makes
unl awf ul al l speech, i ncl udi ng peacef ul demonst r at i ons, wi t h t he
pur pose and ef f ect of causi ng an ani mal ent er pr i se t o l ose
prof i t s . 15
The Uni t ed Stat es r epl i es, r el yi ng on t he pl ai n t ext ,
r ul es of const r uct i on, and l egi sl at i ve i nt ent shown i n l egi sl at i ve
hi st or y, t hat because subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) pr ohi bi t s onl y
i nt ent i onal dest r uct i on of per sonal pr oper t y "used by an ani mal
ent er pr i se, " i d. 43( a) ( 2) ( A) ( emphasi s added) , t he use of
"per sonal pr oper t y" cannot r easonabl y l ead t o pr osecut i ons based
mer el y on expr essi ve act i vi t y causi ng l ost pr of i t s.
The Government says Congress i ntended express i ve conduct
t o be pr ot ect ed agai nst pr osecut i on by AETA' s r ul es of
const r uct i on. Fur t her , i f mor e i s needed as to congr essi onal
15 The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat " per sonal pr oper t y" as usedi n subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) must be read t o encompass onl y "[ ] t angi bl e"t hi ngs, r easoni ng t hat subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) pr ovi des asi l l ust r at i ons of "per sonal pr oper t y" t wo "[ ] t angi bl e[ s] , " namel y"ani mal s" and " r ecor ds. " Bl um, 930 F. Supp. 2d at 336- 37.
-23-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
24/30
i nt ent , AETA' s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y shows t he Act was passed t o
combat "vi ol ent act s" such as "ar son, pour i ng aci d on car s, mai l i ng
r azor bl ades, and def aci ng vi ct i ms' homes. " 152 Cong. Rec. H8590-
01 ( dai l y ed. Nov. 12, 2006) ( st at ement of Rep. Sensenbr enner ) ; see
al so i d. ( st at ement of Rep. Scot t ) ( "Whi l e we must pr ot ect t hose
engaged i n ani mal ent er pr i ses, we must al so pr ot ect t he r i ght of
t hose engaged i n [ F] i r st [ A] mendment f r eedoms of expr essi on
r egar di ng such ent er pr i ses. I t goes wi t hout sayi ng t hat f i r st
amendment f r eedoms of expr essi on cannot be def eat ed by st atut e.
However , t o reassur e anyone concer ned wi t h t he i nt ent of t hi s
l egi sl at i on, we have added i n t he bi l l assur ances t hat i t i s not
i nt ended as a r est r ai nt on f r eedoms of expr ess i on such as l awf ul
boycot t i ng, pi cket i ng or ot her wi se engagi ng i n l awf ul advocacy f or
ani mal s. " ) ; 152 Cong. Rec. S9254- 01 ( dai l y ed. Sept . 8, 2006)
( st at ement of Sen. Fei nst ei n) ( "[ T] hi s l egi sl at i on conf r ont s t hese
t er r or i st t hr eat s i n [ a] manner t hat gi ves due pr ot ect i ons under
t he Fi r st Amendment . I f ul l y r ecogni ze t hat peacef ul pi cket i ng and
publ i c demonst r at i ons agai nst ani mal t est i ng shoul d be recogni zed
as par t of our val uabl e and sacr ed r i ght t o f r ee expr essi on. " ) .
Thi s cour t need not deci de i n t he abst r act whet her
"per sonal pr oper t y . . . used by an ani mal ent er pr i se" coul d ever
be r easonabl y i nt er pr et ed t o i ncl ude i nt angi bl es such as pr of i t s. 16
16 We note t hat under Appr endi v. New J ersey, 530 U. S. 466,490 (2000) , any f act t hat i ncr eases a maxi mum avai l abl e cr i mi nalsent ence must be f ound by a j ury beyond a reasonabl e doubt .
-24-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
25/30
We ar e sat i sf i ed t hat AETA i ncl udes saf eguar ds i n t he f or m of i t s
expr essi on- pr ot ect i ng r ul es of const r uct i on, whi ch pr ecl ude an
i nt er pr et at i on accor di ng t o whi ch pr ot ect ed speech act i vi t y
r esul t i ng i n l ost pr of i t s gi ves r i se t o l i abi l i t y under subsect i on
( a) ( 2) ( A) .
Pl ai nt i f f s i ns i st t hat AETA' s r ul es of constr uct i on
cannot save an ot her wi se unl awf ul st at ut e and so ar e i r r el evant .
Our f ocus i s on t he congr essi onal i nt ent st at ed i n t he st at ut e as
t o what conduct i s cover ed. Congr ess has made i t cl ear t hat
pr osecut i ons under t he st at ut e shoul d not be br ought agai nst "any
expr essi ve conduct ( i ncl udi ng peacef ul pi cket i ng or ot her peacef ul
demonst r at i on) pr ot ected f r om l egal pr ohi bi t i on by the Fi r st
Amendment t o t he Const i t ut i on. " 18 U. S. C. 43( e) ( 1) . We have no
r eason t o t hi nk pr osecut or s wi l l i gnor e t hese pl ai n expr essi ons of
l i mi t i ng i nt ent .
2. Subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( B)
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue next t hat pl ai nt i f f Laur en Gazzol a has
a reasonabl e f ear of pr osecut i on under AETA subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( B) ,
whi ch pr ohi bi t s " i nt ent i onal l y pl ac[ i ng] a per son i n r easonabl e
f ear of . . . deat h . . . or ser i ous bodi l y i nj ury . . . by a
cour se of conduct i nvol vi ng t hr eat s, act s of vandal i sm, pr oper t y
damage, cr i mi nal t r espass, har assment , or i nt i mi dat i on. " I d.
43( a) ( 2) ( B) . Gazzol a al l eges a desi r e t o voi ce gener al suppor t
f or i l l egal act i on by ot her s and t o par t i ci pat e i n l awf ul pr ot est s.
-25-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
26/30
Gazzol a al l eges f ur t her t hat she i s chi l l ed f r om engagi ng i n such
gener al advocacy f or f ear t hat i t mi ght f al l under subsect i on
( a) ( 2) ( B) .
Gazzol a al l eges no i nt ent i on t o engage i n "vandal i sm,
pr oper t y damage, cr i mi nal t r espass, har assment , or i nt i mi dat i on. "
Nor does she al l ege an i nt ent i on t o act i n a way that woul d gi ve
r i se t o a "r easonabl e f ear of . . . deat h . . . or ser i ous bodi l y
i nj ur y. " I ndeed, Gazzol a speci f i cal l y di savows any i nt ent i on t o
engage i n advocacy t hat r i ses t o t he l evel of i nci t ement . See
Ashcrof t v. Fr ee Speech Coal . , 535 U. S. 234, 253 ( 2002) ( "The
government may suppr ess speech f or advocat i ng t he use of f orce or
a vi ol at i on of l aw onl y i f ' such advocacy i s di r ected t o i nci t i ng
or pr oduci ng i mmi nent l awl ess act i on and i s l i kel y t o i nci t e or
pr oduce such act i on. ' " ( quot i ng Br andenbur g v. Ohi o, 395 U. S. 444,
447 (1969) ( per cur i am) ) ) . 17
Taki ng her di savowal i n combi nat i on wi t h AETA' s speci f i c
exempt i on f r om l i abi l i t y of "any expr essi ve conduct ( i ncl udi ng
peacef ul pi cket i ng or ot her peacef ul demonst r at i on) pr ot ect ed f r om
l egal pr ohi bi t i on by t he Fi r st Amendment , " 18 U. S. C. 43( e) ( 1) ,
17 Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai n t hat , i n t he wake of Vi r gi ni a v. Bl ack,538 U. S. 343 ( 2003) , i t i s uncl ear whet her " t r ue t hr eat s" r equi r e
subj ect i ve i nt ent . See Uni t ed St at es v. Cl emens, 738 F. 3d 1, 2- 3( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( not i ng ci r cui t spl i t on i ssue, f i ndi ng no r easont o depar t f r om t hi s ci r cui t ' s obj ecti ve t est ) . However , as t hi scour t has expl ai ned, "[ i ] t i s r ar e t hat a j ur y woul d f i nd t hat ar easonabl e speaker woul d have i nt ended a t hr eat under t hepar t i cul ar f act s of a case but t hat a compet ent def endant di d not . "I d. at 12. The argument does not advance Gazzol a' s cause.
-26-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
27/30
Gazzol a' s f ear of pr osecut i on f or t he l awf ul act i vi t i es she
descr i bes under subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( B) i s unr easonabl e.
That Gazzol a previ ousl y engaged i n and was convi ct ed
under AEPA f or pl ai nl y i l l egal conduct does not hel p her cl ai mt hat
she woul d be pr osecut ed f or l egal expr essi ve act i vi t i es. Gazzol a' s
pr evi ous act i ons went wel l beyond expr essi ng gener al suppor t f or
i l l egal act i on by ot her s. The Thi r d Ci r cui t f ound t hat Gazzol a and
her co- def endant s " coor di nat ed and cont r ol l ed SHAC' s [ i l l egal ]
act i vi t i es, " engaged i n "[ d] i r ect act i on" and "i nt i mi dat i on and
har assment , " and "par t i ci pat ed i n i l l egal pr ot est s, i n addi t i on t o
or chest r at i ng t he i l l egal act s of ot her s. " Ful l mer , 584 F. 3d at
155- 56.
3. Faci al At t ack on Subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( C)
Last , pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he st r uctur e of t he
conspi r acy subsect i on of t he Act coul d r easonabl y be i nt er pr et ed t o
cr i mi nal i ze any conspi r acy ( or at t empt ) t o damage or i nt er f er e wi t h
t he oper at i ons of an ani mal ent er pr i se, even when t here i s no
i nt ent t o or accompl i shi ng of any damage or dest r uct i on of pr oper t y
or causi ng f ear of ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y or deat h. Under AETA,
l i abi l i t y exi st s wher e an i ndi vi dual uses i nt er st at e or f or ei gn
commerce " f or t he pur pose of damagi ng or i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he
oper at i ons of an ani mal ent er pr i se, " 18 U. S. C. 43( a) ( 1) , and, i n
connect i on wi t h such pur pose, i nt ent i onal l y damages or dest r oys
pr oper t y, i d. 43( a) ( 2) ( A) , i nt ent i onal l y pl aces a per son i n f ear
-27-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
28/30
of ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y or deat h, i d. 43( a) ( 2) ( B) , or "conspi r es
or at t empt s t o do so, " i d. 43( a) ( 2) ( C) .
The di sput e here i s t o what "so" i n subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( C)
r ef er s. The Gover nment mai nt ai ns t hat t he "so" can onl y be r ead t o
r ef er t o t he acti vi t i es descr i bed i n subsecti ons ( a) ( 2) ( A) - ( B) ,
t hat i s, i nt ent i onal l y har mi ng pr oper t y or pl aci ng a per son i n
r easonabl e f ear of ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y or deat h. See i d.
43( a) ( 2) ( A) ( condi t i oni ng l i abi l i t y on "i nt ent i onal l y damag[ i ng]
or caus[ i ng] t he l oss of any real or per sonal pr oper t y, " et c. ) ; i d.
43( a) ( 2) ( B) ( condi t i oni ng l i abi l i t y on "i nt ent i onal l y pl ac[i ng]
a per son i n r easonabl e f ear of . . . deat h . . . or ser i ous bodi l y
i nj ury, " etc . ) .
Pl ai nt i f f s, by cont r ast , ar gue t hat "so" mi ght r ef er t o
t he acti vi t y descr i bed i n subsecti on ( a) ( 1) , t hat i s, usi ng
i nt erst ate or f orei gn commerce " f or t he pur pose of damagi ng or
i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he oper at i ons of an ani mal ent er pr i se. " I d.
43( a) ( 1) . Pl ai nt i f f s' i nt er pr et at i on depends on t he somewhat
awkward synt ax of t he pr ovi si on. Whi l e Congr ess mi ght have wr i t t en
mor e cl ear l y, pl ai nt i f f s' r eadi ng i s not what Congr ess i nt ended.
That i nter pret at i on cannot be squar ed wi t h t he cl ear express i ons of
l egi sl at i ve i nt ent i n bot h t he pl ai n t ext of t he Act and t he
l egi s l at i ve hi s tory. Pl ai nt i f f s ' i nt erpr et at i on i s i ncons i stent
wi t h AETA' s t i t l e as codi f i ed, "For ce, vi ol ence, and t hr eat s
i nvol vi ng ani mal ent er pr i ses. " 18 U. S. C. 43 ( emphasi s added) ;
-28-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
29/30
see al so Fl a. Dep' t of Revenue v. Pi ccadi l l y Caf et er i as, I nc. , 554
U. S. 33, 47 ( 2008) ( r el yi ng i n par t on subchapt er ' s t i t l e t o r ej ect
r espondent ' s i nt er pr et at i on of that subchapt er ) . Pl ai nt i f f s'
i nt er pr et at i on woul d al so r ender subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( C) r edundant
si nce ever y t i me subsect i on ( a) ( 1) i s sat i sf i ed so t oo woul d be t he
"at t empt " branch of subsect i on ( a) ( 2) ( C) . Avoi dance of r edundancy
i s a basi c pr i nci pl e of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on. O' Connel l v.
Shal al a, 79 F. 3d 170, 179 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .
Fur t her , t he r ul es of const r uct i on pr ot ect i ng expr essi ve
acti vi t y woul d pr ecl ude pl ai nt i f f s' br oad i nt er pr et at i on. I n
addi t i on, pl ai nt i f f s ' i nt er pr et at i on cont r adi ct s t he l egi s l at i ve
hi st or y, al r eady reci t ed, and whi ch al so shows t hat AETA t ar get s
"hei nous act s" such as "f i r ebomb[ i ng] . " 152 Cong. Rec. S9254- 01
( dai l y ed. Sept . 8, 2006) ( st at ement of Sen. Fei nst ei n) . One ot her
cour t as wel l has rej ect ed t hi s i nt er pr et at i on. See Uni t ed St at es
v. Buddenber g ( "Buddenber g I " ) , No. CR- 09- 00263 RMW, 2009 WL
3485937, at *12 ( N. D. Cal . Oct . 28, 2009) . 18
I V.
I n sum, "[ pl ai nt i f f s] i n t he pr esent case pr esent no
concr et e evi dence t o subst ant i at e t hei r f ear s, but i nst ead r est on
mer e conj ect ur e about poss i bl e gover nment al act i ons. " Cl apper , 133
S. Ct . at 1154. I n par t i cul ar , pl ai nt i f f s ' f ear of pr osecut i on
18 Fur t her , at or al ar gument , t he Gover nment i nsi st ed t hat "nopr osecut or i s goi ng t o br i ng a case sayi ng you' ve conspi r ed t o havea pur pose. "
-29-
7/26/2019 Blum v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)
30/30
under AETA i s based on specul at i on t hat t he Government wi l l enf orce
t he Act pur suant t o i nt erpr et at i ons i t has never adopt ed and now
expl i ci t l y rej ect s . 19 Such unsubst ant i at ed and specul at i ve f ear i s
not a basi s f or st andi ng under Ar t i cl e I I I . 20
I f pl ai nt i f f s do choose t o engage i n conduct whi ch causes
t hem t o be pr osecut ed under AETA, t hey ar e f r ee t o rai se what ever
def enses t hey have i n t hat cont ext .
We af f i r m t he di smi ssal of t hi s acti on f or l ack of
st andi ng. So or der ed.
19 The Associ at i on of t he Bar of t he Ci t y of New Yor k, act i ngas ami cus i n suppor t of pl ai nt i f f s, ci t es Buddenber g I I as anexampl e of unr easonabl e pr osecut i on under AETA. I n t hat case, t heUni t ed St at es f i l ed a cr i mi nal compl ai nt under AETA and under 18
U. S. C. 371 f or conspi r acy t o vi ol at e AETA, al l egi ng t hatdef endant s par t i ci pat ed i n a ser i es of t hr eat eni ng demonst r at i onsat t he homes of a number of UC Ber kel ey and UC Santa Cr uzbi omedi cal r esear cher s whose wor k i nvol ved the use of ani mal s.Buddenber g I I , 2010 WL 2735547, at *1. The di st r i ct cour tdi smi ssed t he i ndi ct ment wi t hout pr ej udi ce on t he gr ound t hat t hei ndi ct ment f ai l ed t o al l ege t he f act s of t he cr i mes char ged wi t hsuf f i ci ent speci f i ci t y. I d. at *10. From t he f act t hat ani ndi ctment l acked speci f i ci t y, i t does not f ol l ow t hat t hei nt er pr et at i on of AETA under l yi ng t he i ndi ct ment was as pl ai nt i f f sar gue or t hat i t was unr easonabl y expansi ve. The avai l abi l i t y anduse of a bi l l of par t i cul ar s by def endant s and t he di smi ssal of t he
case f ur t her undercut any need t o gi ve pr e- enf orcement st andi ng.
20 I ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f I ver Rober t J ohnson, I I I , di d notal l ege t hat he has even a "subj ect i ve ' chi l l , ' " Lai r d, 408 U. S. at13, and so he has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a cogni zabl e i nj ur y. I naddi t i on, hi s cl ai ms f ai l t o meet causat i on and r edr essabi l i t yr equi r ement s. See Bl um, 930 F. Supp. 2d at 337 n. 91.
-30-