Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case 12-3644 Doc 69

Case 12-3644 Doc 69

Ratings: (0)|Views: 243|Likes:
Published by Chase Wilson

More info:

Published by: Chase Wilson on Nov 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/08/2012

pdf

text

original

 
!"#$!%&'(!"#$&))
((
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUITCHRISTOPHER HEDGES, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky,Alexa O’Brien, US Day of Rage, Kai Wargalla, Hon. Birgitta Jonsdottir M.P.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.BARACK OBAMA, individually and as representative of the United States of America, Leon Panetta, individually and in his capacity as the executive andrepresentative of the Department of Defense,Defendant-Appellant,On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-cv-331
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANTS
 __________________________________ PREET BHARARA STUART F. DELERY
United States Attorney Acting Assistant Attorney General 
BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE BETH S. BRINKMANNCHRISTOPHER B. HARWOOD
 Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
 
 Assistant United States Attorneys
ROBERT M. LOEBJEH CHARLES JOHNSON (202) 514-4332
General Counsel 
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
 Department of Defense
(202) 514-3309
 Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 3613 Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530
 
!"#$%&'()*+,,&&&&&-./01$23%&+4&&&&&5"6$%&'&&&&&&''78+7(8'(&&&&&&9+'998&&&&&&98
 
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 3STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 4STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 5STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 5A. S
TATUTORY
B
ACKGROUND
.................................................................... 5B. F
ACTUAL
B
ACKGROUND
........................................................................ 9SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 15STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 18ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 18I. P
LAINTIFFS
L
ACK 
S
TANDING
................................................................ 19A. NDAA § 1021(b)(2) Causes Plaintiffs No Injury ..................... 20B. Plaintiffs Lack Standing Because the NDAA Does NotProscribe Primary Conduct ....................................................... 36C. The Cases Cited By the District Court Do NotSupport Standing ....................................................................... 38II. E
 NTERTAINING
A
 
S
UIT OF THIS
 N
ATURE
I
S
I
 NAPPROPRIATE
 A
BSENT
E
XTRAORDINARY
C
IRCUMSTANCES
,
 
W
HICH
A
RE
 N
OT
 P
RESENTED
H
ERE
................................................................................. 40III. P
LAINTIFFS
 
C
ONSTITUTIONAL
C
LAIMS
L
ACK 
M
ERIT
.......................... 45
!"#$%&'()*+,,&&&&&-./01$23%&+4&&&&&5"6$%&(&&&&&&''78+7(8'(&&&&&&9+'998&&&&&&98
 
- iii -
A. Section 1021(b)(2) Is Not Subject To FacialConstitutional Invalidation under the First Amendmentor Fifth Amendment .................................................................. 46
!
B. Even Under Ordinary Principles Applied to StatutoryProhibitions, Plaintiffs’ Facial Challenge to Section1021(b)(2) Must Fail ................................................................. 511. Section 1021(b) is Not Unconstitutionally Vague ......... 512. Section 1021(b) Does Not Violate the FirstAmendment on Its Face .................................................. 53IV. T
HE
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
A
BUSED ITS
D
ISCRETION IN
E
 NTERING
 A
 
W
ORLDWIDE
I
 NJUNCTION
................................................................. 55CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITHFEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32(A)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEADDENDUM
!"#$%&'()*+,,&&&&&-./01$23%&+4&&&&&5"6$%&*&&&&&&''78+7(8'(&&&&&&9+'998&&&&&&98

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->