U.S.A. v. Buddenberg

Synopsis

U.S.A. v. Buddenberg is a federal prosecution of four animal rights activists in California—being referred to as the AETA 4—for conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism. The 4 are being charged with a course of conduct that includes First Amendment protected activities such as protesting, chalking the sidewalk, chanting and leafleting.

Status

On May 22, 2009, CCR joined with defense counsel to file a motion to dismiss the U.S. government’s indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The motion asks the Court to strike down the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional.  Matthew Strugar, a cooperating attorney with CCR, argued the motion in federal District Court in San Jose on July 13.

Description

U.S.A. v. Buddenberg is a federal prosecution of four animal rights activists in California for conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism.

On February 19th and 20th, the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI arrested four animal rights activists as “terrorists.” The indictment against Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo (the AETA 4) charges them with conduct including protesting, chalking the sidewalk, chanting and leafleting –, and the alleged use of “the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers.” These acts are all protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The indictment was made possible because of a little known law called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). Passed by Congress in November, the AETA is aimed at suppressing speech and advocacy by criminalizing First Amendment-protected activities such as protests, boycotts, picketing and whistleblowing. It targets animal rights activists, but includes language so broad and vague it could be used to prosecute labor activists who organize a successful boycott of Wal-Mart, or union folks who picket a university cafeteria. Pushed through Congress by a powerful lobby of corporations and research institutions, the AETA is an unconstitutional law, because it criminalizes a broad swath of protected First Amendment activities and is so unclear as to fail to give people notice of whether or not their conduct is lawful. On this basis, CCR and the defense team have asked the Court to strike down the AETA as unconstitutional.

By their motion, CCR has attached the AETA as facially unconstitutional on the grounds of “overbreadth” and “vagueness.” These are doctrines that allow individuals to challenge laws that chill speech and advocacy and require people to guess at a statutes its meaning and scope.

For more on the AETA and what you can do, click here.

Timeline

Share This