Brief filed: 10/18/2017
United States v. Sineneng-Smith
9th Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 15-10614
Decision below 2013 WL 6776188 (N.D. Calif. Dec. 23, 2013).
The statute of conviction is overbroad under the First Amendment, and a limiting construction should not be used to cure the First Amendment defect. The statute of conviction is overbroad, reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. Any limiting construction should not be used to cure the First Amendment defects, as doing so would invade the legislative domain. The statute of conviction is void for vagueness under the First Amendment, and a limiting construction should not be used to cure the constitutional vagueness problem. The Court should find that the statute of conviction contains an implicit “willful” or “knowing” mens rearequirement, but nevertheless should conclude that such a mens rea element would not cure the statute of its serious constitutional problems.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Elliott Schulder, Tina M. Thomas, and Nicole Y. Roberts, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC; Robin E. Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP, Seattle, WA.