Blum v. Holder
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4340
1st Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are animal-rights activists in Massachusetts challenging AETA as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
- District Court dismissed for lack of Article III standing, finding no injury-in-fact or objectively reasonable chill.
- Plaintiffs allege three constitutional defects: overbreadth, content/viewpoint discrimination, and vagueness.
- Plaintiffs claim fear of future prosecutions and self-restraint amount to injury-in-fact, despite no current enforcement or intent to prosecute.
- Government disavows any intent to prosecute plaintiffs for their stated activities and argues interpretations are unreasonable; statute includes express protections for protected expressive conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge pre-enforcement AETA | Plaintiffs allege credible fear of enforcement and chilling of protected speech | No credible threat or injury-in-fact; conduct not clearly within AETA | Dismissal affirmed; no injury-in-fact |
| Whether AETA's (a)(2)(A) overbroad in restricting expressive conduct | Reading includes lost profits as 'personal property' triggering liability | Statute targets destruction of property used by an animal enterprise; construction protects expressive conduct | No overbreadth; construction safeguards prevent such prosecutions |
| Whether (a)(2)(B) facially/vaguely chills lawful expressive activity | Gazzola may fear lawful advocacy under (a)(2)(B) | Exemption for expressive conduct under §43(e)(1) and no intended prosecution | Gazzola's fear unreasonable; standing lacking |
| Whether (a)(2)(C) could criminalize mere conspiracy/attempt | Conspiracy/attempt could chill broad advocacy | Conspiracy requires purposeful engagement with harmful outcomes; consistent with legislative history | Plain reading consistent with intent; no standing problems |
Key Cases Cited
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (standing requires certainly impending injury; not mere fear of surveillance)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes injury-in-fact standards for standing)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (requires realistic threat of enforcement for standing; not mere conjecture)
- National Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (credible threat or chilling effect necessary for standing in state statutes)
- Ramírez v. Sánchez Ramos, 438 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2006) (fear must be credible, not speculative, for standing)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) (statutory interpretation and government disavowal affect standing findings)