March, 19 2013, 02:54pm EDT
![Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012668/origin.png)
Rights Group Condemns Dismissal of Animal Rights "Terrorism" Case
Activists Will Appeal, Attorneys Say
WASHINGTON
Last night, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), without addressing the central First Amendment question in the case. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) brought the case on behalf of five long-time animal rights activists who allege that the 2006 law violates their right to free speech. The judge ruled that the men and women suing the government did not have standing to bring the case and therefor the case could not go forward. The judge's ruling was based on a narrow interpretation of the AETA as criminalizing only property destruction and threats, despite the law's broad prohibition on causing an animal enterprise any loss of property, which is generally understood to include the loss of profit. Attorneys say they will appeal the dismissal.
"As Judge Tauro recognized, each of our clients has refrained from engaging in constitutionally protected speech out of fear that she or he will be prosecuted as a terrorist under the AETA," said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney and lead counsel Rachel Meeropol. "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."
According to attorneys, the language of the AETA is so overbroad that it criminalizes protected First Amendment speech. The law punishes anyone found to have caused the loss of property or profits to a business or other institution that uses or sells animals or animal products or to "a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise." Furthermore, according to Meeropol, key terms in the statute, including the definition of an "animal enterprise," are unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiffs, who have long histories of participating in peaceful protests and animal rights advocacy, say that fear of prosecution as terrorists has led them to limit or even cease their lawful advocacy.
"Since the passage of the AETA, I no longer feel free to speak my mind on the issues closest to my heart out of fear that my advocacy could be prosecuted as terrorism," said plaintiff Sarahjane Blum. "How can I continue my activism if I cannot even challenge the constitutionality of the law that is chilling my speech?"
Groups including the Fur Commission USA, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and several pharmaceutical companies lobbied for the law. Critics argue it punishes peaceful protests and turns non-violent civil disobedience into "terrorism." Moreover, though it targets animal rights activists specifically, the AETA is written so broadly, they say, it could turn a successful labor protest at Wal-Mart, which sells animal products, into an act of domestic terrorism. Non-violent protesters charged under the law face up to twenty years in prison, depending on the amount of profit loss that results from their actions.
In the first use of the AETA, in 2009, four activists were indicted and arrested in California by the Joint Terrorism Task Force for protesting, writing on sidewalks with chalk, chanting, leafleting, and using the Internet to find information on animal researchers. They each faced ten years in prison. A federal judge dismissed that case in 2010.
The AETA amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), which punished causing a "physical disruption" to an animal enterprise. In 2006, six activists were convicted in New Jersey for conspiring to violate the AEPA, and served between one and six years in prison for publishing a website that advocated and reported on protest activity against an animal testing lab, its business affiliates, and their employees. The activists were not accused of injuring anyone or vandalizing any property. One of the defendants in that case, Lauren Gazzola, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the AETA.
The Center for Constitutional Rights provided amicus support in the New Jersey AEPA case, and was co-counsel in the California AETA case.
Blum v. Holder, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Alexander Reinert, an associate professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, along with David Milton and Howard Friedman of the Law Offices of Howard Friedman PC, are co-counsel on the case.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Labour Ditches Tory Plan to Oppose ICC Request for Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
Now the United Kingdom's government must "stop selling Israel weapons," said one observer.
Jul 26, 2024
The United Kingdom's newly elected Labour government abandoned plans by its Tory predecessor to challenge the International Criminal Court's May application for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Under Conservative leadership, the U.K. joined the U.S., Germany, and other Israel allies in condemning the ICC prosecutor's application for arrest warrants against the top Israeli officials for alleged war crimes in Gaza, including "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare" and "extermination."
The ICC prosecutor also applied for arrest warrants against Hamas leaders over atrocities committed in Israel on October 7.
As The Financial Timesreported, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer "had until Friday to decide whether to make legal arguments to support questions raised by the previous Conservative government over the ICC's jurisdiction to issue warrants against Netanyahu and his defense minister."
A spokesperson for the Labour government said it would "not be pursuing this in line with our long-standing position" that "it's a matter for the courts to decide."
"Well done to the millions of people across the country who have made it clear that they refuse to be complicit in war crimes."
Humanitarians applauded the government's decision. Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at Medical Aid for Palestinians, called Tory opposition to the proposed arrest warrants "a disgraceful attempt to delay justice."
"I hope the new government will now throw its full support behind the court and uphold any warrants issued," Talbot added.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, also welcomed the move and urged the government to "stop selling Israel weapons." Between October 7 and May 31, the U.K. government issued more than 100 arms export licenses to Israel, according to official figures reported by The Guardian.
Reutersreported earlier this week that in documents released Tuesday, "judges granted permission to 18 states including the U.S., Germany, and South Africa to file written submissions to the ICC about its proposed arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas leaders.
"While there is no set deadline to rule on the prosecution request for arrest warrants," the news agency noted, "allowing dozens of legal arguments will slow the process by the three-judge panel deciding on the matter."
Former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, who won reelection to his Islington North seat as an Independent following his expulsion from the Labour Party, called the Starmer government's decision to ditch the Tories' opposition to the ICC arrest warrant requests "an important first step in respecting the universal application of international law."
"Well done to the millions of people across the country who have made it clear that they refuse to be complicit in war crimes," Corbyn added. "We will continue to demand an end to the massacre in Gaza, an end to all arms sales to Israel, and an end to the occupation of Palestine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Healthcare Workers Back From Gaza Tell Harris and Biden: 'End This Madness'
"Every day that we continue supplying weapons and munitions to Israel is another day that women are shredded by our bombs and children are murdered with our bullets."
Jul 26, 2024
As President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Thursday, dozens of American healthcare workers who recently volunteered in the Gaza Strip urged the U.S. leaders to do everything in their power to end Israel's assault on the enclave, citing the horrors they witnessed firsthand.
In an open letter addressed to Biden, Harris, and First Lady Jill Biden, 45 physicians, surgeons, and nurses wrote that "we wish you could see the nightmares that plague so many of us since we have returned: dreams of children maimed and mutilated by our weapons, and their inconsolable mothers begging us to save them."
"We wish you could hear the cries and screams our consciences will not let us forget," the letter reads. "We cannot believe that anyone would continue arming the country that is deliberately killing these children after seeing what we have seen."
The healthcare workers called on the Biden administration to "withhold military, economic, and diplomatic support from the state of Israel and to participate in an international arms embargo of both Israel and all Palestinian armed groups until a permanent cease-fire is established, and until good-faith negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians lead to a permanent resolution of the conflict."
"We are not politicians. We do not claim to have all the answers," they continued. "We are simply physicians and nurses who cannot remain silent about what we saw in Gaza. Every day that we continue supplying weapons and munitions to Israel is another day that women are shredded by our bombs and children are murdered with our bullets. President Biden and Vice President Harris, we urge you: End this madness now!"
This is an open letter addressed to @POTUS, @VP , and @FLOTUS signed by 45 American physicians and nurses, about what we saw while working in Gaza. Please feel free to distribute. A PDF can be downloaded from the link and/or QR code on page 1. pic.twitter.com/LHVvmeAFad
— Feroze Sidhwa (@FerozeSidhwa) July 25, 2024
The letter was released as Netanyahu, fresh off his widely condemned address to the U.S. Congress, met separately on Thursday with Biden and Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
In remarks following her meeting with Netanyahu, Harris said that "what has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating," pointing to "the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time."
"We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies," the vice president added. "We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent."
Harris said she told Netanyahu directly to "get this deal done"—referring to a cease-fire agreement with Hamas—but, as expected, she did not break with the administration on supplying arms to the Israeli military.
While there has been no obvious policy change from the administration now that Harris has taken over for Biden at the top of the Democratic Party's presidential ticket, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft argued that the vice president "clearly broke with Biden on Israel in terms of rhetoric and tone."
Parsi also contended that there was "a substance shift."
"Biden has disingenuously claimed that Hamas blocked a cease-fire deal," Parsi wrote on social media. "By saying that she urged Netanyahu 'to clinch the deal,' Kamala pointed to the real obstacle."
BREAKING: VP Harris speaks after meeting with Israeli PM Netanyahu
Harris calling for an immediate cease-fire deal to free the hostages.
The VP saying she “will not be silent" about the suffering in Gaza, the "devastating" loss of life and the "dire" humanitarian crisis. pic.twitter.com/Fe5QPoOuFh
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) July 25, 2024
In their letter to Harris and Biden, the healthcare workers wrote that Israel "has directly targeted and deliberately devastated Gaza's entire healthcare system" and "targeted our colleagues in Gaza for death, disappearance, and torture." According to figures from the United Nations Human Rights Office, Israeli forces have killed one in every 40 healthcare workers in the Palestinian territory since October as diseases spread and the number of Gazans killed or wounded continues to grow by the hour.
The healthcare workers expressed the view that—based on available evidence and their experiences—"the death toll from this conflictis many times higher than what is reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health," which currently stands at over 39,100.
"We also believe this is probative evidence of widespread violations of American laws governing the use of American weapons abroad, and of international humanitarian law," they continued. "We cannot forget the scenes of unbearable cruelty directed at women and children that we witnessed ourselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tragic Outcome' for Gig Workers as California Supreme Court Hands Win to Uber, DoorDash
"Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers," the case plaintiff said.
Jul 25, 2024
Labor advocates on Thursday decried a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a lower court's affirmation of a state ballot measure allowing app-based ride and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors, limiting their worker rights.
The court's seven justices ruled unanimously in Castellanos v. State of California that Proposition 22, which was approved by 58% of California voters in 2020, complies with the state constitution. Prop 22—which was overturned in 2021 by an Alameda County Superior Court judge in 2021—was upheld in March 2023 by the state's 1st District Court of Appeals.
The business models of app-based companies including DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and Uber rely upon minimizing frontline worker compensation by categorizing drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Independent contractors are not entitled to unemployment insurance, health insurance, or compensation for business expenses.
There are approximately 1.4 million app-based gig workers in California, according to industry estimates.
While DoorDash hailed Thursday's ruling as "not only a victory for Dashers, but also for democracy itself," gig worker advocates condemned the decision.
"Over the last three years, gig workers across California have experienced firsthand that Prop 22 is nothing more than a bait-and-switch meant to enrich global corporations at the expense of the Black, brown, and immigrant workers who power their earnings," plaintiff Hector Castellanos, who drives for Uber and Lyft, said in a statement.
"Prop 22 has allowed gig companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to deprive us of a living wage, access to workers compensation, paid sick leave, and meaningful healthcare coverage," Castellanos added. "Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers."
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, said that "we are deeply disappointed that the state Supreme Court has allowed tech corporations to buy their way out of basic labor laws despite Proposition 22's inconsistencies with our state constitution."
"These companies have upended our social contract, forcing workers and the public to take on the inherent risk created by this work, while they profit," she continued. "A.B. 5 granted virtually all California workers the right to be paid for all hours worked, health and safety standards, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to organize."
"Rideshare and delivery drivers deserve those rights as well," Gonzalez stressed.
The Gig Workers Rising campaign said on social media that "Uber and other app corporations spent $220 million to buy this law, and they did it by tricking Californians."
Prop 22's passage in November 2020 with nearly 59% of the vote was the culmination of what was by far the most expensive ballot measure in California history. App-based companies and their backers outspent labor and progressive groups by more than 10 to 1, with proponents pouring a staggering $204.5 million into the "yes" campaign's coffers against just $19 million for the "no" side.
"Voters were told the initiative would provide us with 'historic new benefits' and guaranteed earnings," said Gig Workers Rising. "But since it went into effect, drivers have seen our pay go down, learned the benefits are a sham, and have to accept unsafe rides because of the constant threat of being 'deactivated,' kicked off the app with little explanation or warning."
"If Uber really cared about good benefits and fair wages, it could make that happen tomorrow," the campaign added. "Instead, it has shown it would rather slash pay, bamboozle voters, and put drivers' lives and livelihoods in danger—all while promising $7 billion in stock buybacks to banks and billionaires."
Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who focuses on labor and inequality, toldCalMatters that Thursday's ruling was "a really tragic outcome," but "it's not the end of the road."
Dubal's sentiment was echoed by some California state legislators, who said the ruling presents an opportunity to act.
"While this decision is frustrating, it must also be motivating," said state Senate Labor Committee Chair Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-28). "I'm more determined than ever to ensure that all workers—including our diverse and Black, Indigenous, and people of color-led gig workforce—have the basic protections of workers compensation, paid sick leave, family leave, disability insurance, and the right to form a union."
Prop 22 has served as a template for lawmakers in other states seeking to deny or limit basic worker rights, benefits, and protections.
In Massachusetts, app-based companies have been fighting for years to get a measure to classify drivers as contractors on the state ballot. In 2022, Lyft made the largest political donation in state history—$14.4 million—to a coalition funding one such proposal.
Last month, Uber and Lyft reached an agreement with the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 2020. As part of the deal, the companies also agreed to increase driver pay and provide paid sick leave, accident insurance, and some health benefits. The agreement does not address how app-based gig workers should be classified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular