On March 12, 2013, the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts dismissed a lawsuit which challenges the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. In dismissing Blum v. Holder, the court did not rule on the merits of the case, but found that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. Plaintiffs, who are five animal activists, vow to appeal. The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, along with other attorneys.

What is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?

In a nutshell, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a federal law that makes it illegal to attempt to damage or interfere with an animal enterprise and "intentionally [damage] or [cause] the loss of any real or personal property" or "intentionally [place] a person in reasonable fear of [death], or serious bodily injury."

An "animal enterprise" is defined as:

(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or
(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

The law specifically exempts "expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution."

AETA and the U.S. Constitution

Blum v.

Holder challenges the constitutionality of the AETA. Plaintiffs allege that the law is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that it violates their First Amendment rights.

Vague laws are unconstitutional because people cannot be expected to follow laws if it unclear what is allowed and what is prohibited.

Overbroad laws are those that prohibit activity that is protected by the constitution. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal law against crush videos was unconstitutionally overbroad. Congress passed a new, narrower law against crush videos eight months later.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. Courts have held that expressions such as protests, leaflets, books, films, and even horn honking are protected speech.

If the AETA explicitly exempts conduct that is prohibited by the First Amendment, why do animal and civil liberties advocates say that the law is unconstitutional?

As explained in plaintiffs' complaint, the AETA "fails to define key terms, but its plain language criminalizes core political advocacy and speech that are protected by the First Amendment." The complaint gives the examples of a business losing profits or hiring security guards as possible "losses" of property under the law - even possibly in the context of a labor union picket. The law also "has cast a chill over the animal rights community, leading many advocates to censor themselves and refrain from protected speech." The law also "discriminates on the basis of the content and viewpoint of particular speech and expressive conduct."

Opponents of the AETA include not only animal advocates, but also civil liberties advocates. In their amicus brief in Blum v. Holder, the American Civil Liberties Union writes that the AETA contains unclear terms, is "susceptible to arbitrary enforcement because it applies to numerous economic and property crimes," and "fails to specify what conduct it prohibits."

The Equal Justice Alliance, which is not a party to the lawsuit, was formed to oppose the passage of the AETA, and has more information about the AETA here.

Why was the lawsuit dismissed?

In an opinion dated March 18, 2013, U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro held that the five plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, but did not rule on the merits of the case.

In order to bring a lawsuit, a plaintiff must have Article III standing. In order to have standing, plaintiffs must:

demonstrate injury-in-fact, that the injury in question is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged action, and that the injury is one that could be redressed by a favorable decision.

The standing requirement is important for ensuring that the court considers only real cases or controversies, and not hypothetical cases. The lawsuit against Ringling Bros. Circus over the treatment of their elephants was also dismissed for lack of standing.

In First Amendment cases, for the chill in one's speech to be considered an injury, the chill must be objectively reasonable. The court in Blum v. Holder did not find the plaintiffs' chill objectively reasonable because plaintiffs planned to engage only in legal conduct and conduct protected under the First Amendment. In Judge Tauro's interpretation of the AETA, causing a loss of profits through peaceful protests would not be illegal.

Through a press release, Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney and lead counsel for plaintiffs, explained, “While the judge’s narrow reading of the statute would solve some of its many constitutional flaws, our clients and other activists have no guarantee that prosecutors, or even other judges, will agree. They will continue to be chilled from speaking out on important issues of public concern until this law is struck down.”

Blum v. Holder was originally filed in December of 2011. The five plaintiffs are Sarahjane Blum, Ryan Shapiro, Lana Lehr, Laura Gazzola, and J Johnson.

The information on this website is not legal advice and is not a substitute for legal advice. For legal advice, please consult an attorney.

Have a question or comment? Discuss in the Forum.