Animal Protection > ALF Foes
Lawsuit challenges animal enterprise terror law as unconstitutional

full story and comments here:,0,6987711.story

Animal activist Sarahjane Blum removing a duck from a farm where it had been raised for fois gras. Blum and four other activists have challenged a domestic terrorism law aimed at animal rights activists. (

By Dean Kuipers
December 15, 2011, 11:23 a.m.
Attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit Thursday in Massachusetts challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, saying the controversial business protection law has the potential to criminalize many forms of protest that are protected by the First Amendment.

Passed with much fanfare in 2006 as a reaction to attacks on fur farms and other businesses by shadowy animal rights groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, the law has not been used as much as initially expected, primarily because of problems defining the criminalized behavior.

'We're filing a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts on behalf of five activists who have devoted years of their lives to animal rights advocacy. We are challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment" as well as the constitutional right to due process, said Rachel Meerpol, a staff attorney at the center.

The AETA, as the law is known, prohibits damaging or interfering with an animal enterprise by causing damage or loss of property, by intentionally making some individual fear for his or her safety, or by conspiracy. The allows for domestic terrorism charges and affords extremely severe penalties, including terror sentencing enhancements.

The law was first used against a group of California animal rights activists nicknamed the 'AETA 4,' who picketed at the homes of researchers who used animals in their work. In 2009, the judge in that case threw out the indictment, saying the alleged threats presented by the defendants were too vague, writing:

'While 'true threats' enjoy no First Amendment protection, picketing and political protest are at the very core of what is protected by the First Amendment. Where the defendants' conduct falls on this spectrum in this case will very likely ultimately be decided by a jury. Before this case proceeds to a jury, however, the defendants are entitled to a more specific indictment setting forth their conduct alleged to be criminal.'

Thursday's suit, Blum v. Holder, challenges the statute's profit-loss prong.

'The law criminalizes causing damage or loss to the real or personal property of an animal enterprise,' explains Meerpol. 'Because those terms aren't defined, you have to take them at their common usage. And under common usage, 'personal property' includes money, includes profits. So that means that the acts can fairly be read to criminalize anyone who causes a business to lose profits. Activists from any social movements could be subject to prosecution as terrorists if their advocacy, if their lawful protest, affects the bottom line of a business.'

That could potentially include boycotts or any advocacy that dissuades consumers from buying a company's products ' for instance, endorsing vegetarianism.

The five plaintiffs are animal rights activists whose complaint is that they can no longer engage in lawful advocacy out of fear of prosecution under the AETA.

Plaintiffs Sarahjane Blum and Ryan Shapiro, for instance, made a film in 2004 called 'Delicacy of Despair' about the farming of ducks whose livers are fattened for fois gras. Both now contend that the AETA has chilled their ability to engage the media or conduct public campaigns for fear of prosecution as terrorists.

'We're asking for the statute to be struck down as unconstitutional, and for defendants to not be allowed to enforce it against anyone, including the plaintiffs,' adds Meerpol.

full story and photos:

December 15, 2011


A group of animal rights activists sued the U.S. government Thursday to challenge the constitutionality of a rarely used law they say treats them like terrorists if they cause a loss in profits for businesses that use or sell animal products.

Five activists represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights filed the lawsuit in federal court in Boston, asking that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act be struck down as unconstitutional because it has a chilling effect on lawful protest activities.

Staff attorney Rachel Meeropol said the 2006 law has left activists afraid to participate in public protests out of fear they will be prosecuted.

"There are many terms in the law that are not defined, and because of that protesters don't have notice that certain conduct is going to violate the statute and what conduct is protected by the First Amendment," Meeropol said.

"Some of my clients want to engage in simple public protests ' perhaps in front of a fur store ' to change public opinion about fur," she said. "But they feel restricted from engaging in that clearly lawful activity because under the plain language of the law, if that protest is successful in convincing consumers not to shop at that fur store, they could be charged as terrorists."

The law can be used to prosecute someone for damaging or interfering with the operations of an "animal enterprise" when a person "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property used by an animal enterprise" or a business connected to an animal enterprise.

Meeropol said courts have interpreted "personal property" to include a loss of profits for the business.

The law also can be used to prosecute anyone who "intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury" through threats, vandalism, harassment or intimidation.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is the only defendant named in the lawsuit. A Justice Department representative did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The law has been rarely used since it was enacted in 2006, but Meeropol said the cases of those who have been prosecuted instilled fear among animal rights activists.

In 2009, four activists were charged for allegedly participating in threatening demonstrations at the homes of University of California scientists who did animal research. Prosecutors also alleged that the four created or distributed a flier listing the professors' home addresses and stating, "animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse." A judge eventually dismissed the charges.

Two other activists were indicted in Utah in 2009 for releasing hundreds of animals from a mink farm. Both pleaded guilty to animal enterprise terrorism and were sentenced to 21 months and 24 months in prison.

A Minnesota graduate student was sentenced to six months in prison for working with other activists in a 2006 raid on a farm where dozens of breeding ferrets were let loose. Scott Ryan DeMuth pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism under a deal with federal prosecutors in Iowa. Prosecutors said the raid contributed to the ferret farm's closure months later and destroyed the owner's livelihood.

Ryan Shapiro, a longtime animal rights activist from Cambridge who is one of the plaintiffs in the Boston lawsuit, said he no longer conducts undercover filmed investigations of animal treatment on factory farms because he is concerned about possible prosecution.

"One of the ways the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act silences free speech is that if one obtains that footage and then brings that footage to the public about how animals are suffering on factory farms, it might affect the profits of that farm," Shapiro said. "As a result, simply bringing that information to the public and trying to educate individuals is now prosecutable as a terrorist act under the law."

Activists Silenced by Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act File Lawsuit

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin,