Legal Opinion
Blum v. Holder
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided March 7, 2014No. 13-1490PublishedCited by 65 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LYNCH, Chief Judge.
Sarahjane Blum and four others are committed and experienced animal right activists. Although they have never been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (“AETA” or “Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 43, which criminalizes “force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises,” they sued to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief that the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The district court dismissed their complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that these plaintiffs lacked standing because they have suffered no injury…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by65 opinions
- Hochendoner v. Genzyme CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2016
- Reddy v. FosterCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
- Speech First, Incorporated v. Gregory FenvesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2020
- Lyman v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2020
- United States v. SayerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.