United States v. Mullet
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85930
N.D. Ohio2012Background
- A March 28, 2012 superseding indictment charges 16 Defendants with hate crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2).
- Victims are nine Old Order Amish in northeast Ohio; beard and head hair are sacred symbols for them.
- Mullet, Sr. is the Amish leader; Defendants purportedly follow him and act to Punish dissent within their group.
- In fall 2011, Defendants attacked Amish men and women by cutting beards and hair, using hair clippers, scissors, and related tools.
- The assaults occurred across four counties with interstate elements—screens via mail, motor vehicles, and interstate-supplied clippers; a disposable camera memorialized acts.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12 arguing Commerce Clause limits, First Amendment concerns, and intra-religion applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 249(a)(2) under Commerce Clause | Defendants challenge Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. | Statute exceeds Commerce Clause limits as applied to intra-religion violence. | Statute constitutional on its face and as applied. |
| First Amendment challenges to § 249(a)(2) | Act infringes religious freedom and expression. | Law targets violence, not beliefs or speech. | No First Amendment violation; statute prohibits violent acts, not beliefs. |
| Intra-religion violence within § 249(a)(2) reach | Act does not apply to intra-religion violence between Amish individuals. | Statute should be read to exclude intra-religion violence. | Statute applies to intra-religion violence; no implied exception. |
| RFRA applicability | RFRA may shield religious conduct from criminal penalties. | RFRA may apply to bar enforcement of § 249(a)(2). | RFRA argument rejected; violence not protected religious exercise; statute sufficiently narrow. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (commerce power limits on criminal statutes)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (limits on civil remedies under Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional element saves statute from Lopez-style challenge)
- Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) (First Amendment does not protect violence)
- Beason v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) (crime not excused by religious belief)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) (belief and conduct distinction under First Amendment)
- Doe v. Boland, 680 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation limits on religiously motivated exceptions)
- American Life League v. Reno, 977 F.2d 1028 (4th Cir. 1992) (RFRA-like considerations in narrow governmental interest)