A 3D printer company founded by provocateur Cody Wilson, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, has filed for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case asking that the company be allowed to post on its website instructions for using a 3D printer to manufacture a plastic gun.
Defense Distributed and the Foundation sued the State Department and other government persons and agencies back in May 2015 after the government threatened the company in May of 2013 for hosting the 3D gun manufacturing files.
The government maintains that such files are essentially armaments in and of themselves and subject to existing laws against the export of such munitions, with posting them in a place where foreigners could access them constituting such an illegal export.
The plaintiffs have sustained a series of losses in lower courts attempting to get a preliminary injunction against the government. Their plaintiffs contends the government has violated the company owners' First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights with its actions.
Most specifically in this cert petition they have asked the Supreme Court to answer these questions:
1. Whether a court weighing a preliminary injunction must consider a First Amendment plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. 2. Whether it is always in the public interest to follow constitutional requirements. 3. Whether the Arms Export Control Act of 1976....and its implementing International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR")...may be applied as a prior restraint on public speech.
The petition insists that in denying their request for an injunction, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a dangerous stance in balancing the First Amendment against government's insistence that it has very good reason to violate it.
It is also worth noting the files in question, although no longer hosted by Defense Distributed, are universally available on the internet from many other sources.
Defense Distributed is represented in this case by Alan Gura, who won two previous Second Amendment victories at the Supreme Court in 2008's Heller case and 2010's McDonald. Gura and his co-counsels argue in the petition the Fifth Circuit should not have been allowed to have:
simply declared that the government's asserted interests outweighed the interest in securing constitutional rights....considering the merits of preliminary injunction motions is not optional. Of all contexts, the merits cannot be optional in First Amendment cases. It should ordinarily go without sayingand so it must now be saidthat federal courts cannot dismiss the Constitution's primacy in our legal system...
The government can be relied upon to assert the necessity of every prior restraint. The public must be able to rely on the courts to test these assertions for constitutional compliance.
Gura argues the government's rules defining what falls under ITAR are completely ambiguous and confusing. The process for learning whether or not those rules apply to you is a similar mess of ambiguity and overreach. And the government's ability to stonewall drags out cases like that of Defense Distributed for years, Gura writes.
The petition also details the history of interpretation of ITAR over the past decade in the (proper) direction of not using it as a prior restraint on expression or speech on American citizens when it involved non-classified information.
The Fifth Circuit, in its decision on the appeal of an initial district court loss for Defense Distributed, was pretty blatant in saying the First Amendment doesn't count here because the government says so:
Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security.
Gura finds that assertion unsatisfying, leaning on a Fifth Circuit dissent from the panel's majority opinion. Dissenter Judge Edith Jones:
noted that "[i]nterference with First Amendment rights for any period of time, even for short periods, constitutes irreparable injury,"...and that "Defense Distributed has been denied publication rights for over three years,"...She then found it "a mystery" why the majority was "unwilling to correct" the district court's "obvious error" in applying only intermediate scrutiny to the content-based prior restraint at issue...
[Judge Jones believes the State Department's censorship of Defense Distributed] "appears to violate the governing statute, represents an irrational interpretation of the regulations, and violates the First Amendment as a content-based regulation and a prior restraint."
Jones also pointed out how weirdly ineffectual is the government's desired power to violate the First Amendment. The government admits stating or publishing that same information at a conference in the U.S., or in a domestic publication or library, would be protected speech if they somehow could insure no foreigners accessed it. Foreigners could, of course, access such information on the Internet, an act considered a blow against national security so severe it trumps the First Amendment. That is, if "foreigners can't hear this speech" is to be held as true and important, the power to restrict speech applies far beyond the Internet.
The Fifth Circuit's decision to ignore the First Amendment is dangerous far beyond the simple question of publishing files for printing plastic armaments on the internet, Gura argues. That decision:
has unsettled the established norms for adjudicating preliminary injunction requests. Gone is this [Supreme] Court's careful balancing test, with its reliance on the merits. In its place, a wholly arbitrary system: The court will consider the merits, when it wishes to do so. Whether the merits might reveal a constitutional violation is less important, because the court will enforce the Constitution only when it seems to be a good idea.
What are courts, attorneys, and the public to make of this innovation?
Critics of this or that opinion often allege that a court has followed an extra-constitutional agenda. For a court to declare that it has done just thatin ignoring a content-based prior restraint no lessraises basic questions about the judiciary's function. The public is left with no way of knowing when a judge would declare some interest more important than the Constitution, or even bother hearing the merits of plainly significant pleas to enjoin unconstitutional conduct.
Absent a merits inquiry, a court balancing the unknown equities is reduced...to declaring whether an abstract interest in constitutional rights is more or less important than an equally abstract government interest. And if the court then decides, as did the majority below, that security > freedom, that ends the matter. The logic is inescapable; where applied, it bars any injunctive relief.
Expressed that way, the danger of letting the Fifth Circuit decision stand should be clear even to Americans who don't understand why anyone, domestic or foreign, needs a computer file that helps them print a plastic gun at home.
The Supreme Court should take up the case, and let lower courts know they can't, absent a fair consideration of the merits, blithely decide that security beats the First Amendment in court.
Reason TV interviewed Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed last year:
Go here to read the rest:
Can a Court Arbitrarily Conclude That 'Security' Overrules the First Amendment? - Reason (blog)
- Florida education news: First Amendment rights, flu shots and another superintendents struggles - Tampa Bay Times - November 16th, 2019
- First Amendment rights are not a one-way street - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle - November 16th, 2019
- First Amendment conference explored diminishing local news as a 'crisis of democracy' - The Daily Tar Heel - November 16th, 2019
- The 'Evil' First Amendment - The American Conservative - November 16th, 2019
- First Amendment website launching by end of November - University Star - November 16th, 2019
- LTTE: We all have business exercising our First Amendment rights - Rocky Mountain Collegian - November 16th, 2019
- "The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, And The Future Of Dissent" - WAMC - November 16th, 2019
- Trump Attack on Envoy During Testimony Raises Charges of Witness Intimidation - The New York Times - November 16th, 2019
- Facebook has a political fake news problem. Can we fix it without eroding the First Amendment? - NBC News - October 27th, 2019
- The Panhandling Problem: When public safety clashes with the 1st Amendment - WCJB - October 27th, 2019
- Can a black high school guard be fired for quoting the n-word? | TheHill - The Hill - October 27th, 2019
- The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent - The Humanist - October 27th, 2019
- Liz Cheney Calls Out Dems' New House Bill Intended to 'Circumvent the First Amendment' - Townhall - October 27th, 2019
- Mitch McConnell slams election-security bill as 'transparent attack on the First Amendment' - The Washington TImes - October 27th, 2019
- Are Corporate Employees Protected by the First Amendment? - IPWatchdog.com - August 25th, 2017
- NAACP asks for meeting with Goodell over Colin Kaepernick's First Amendment rights - CBSSports.com - August 25th, 2017
- The ACLU was practicing a core First Amendment duty - Washington Post - August 25th, 2017
- Letter: The right has hijacked the First Amendment to preach hate ... - INFORUM - August 25th, 2017
- Lawyer who objected to mandatory bar's PAC contribution loses First Amendment appeal - ABA Journal - August 25th, 2017
- LA Times: Restrict the Second Amendment at First Amendment rallies - Hot Air - August 25th, 2017
- Is advocating suicide a crime under the First Amendment? - OUPblog (blog) - August 22nd, 2017
- Letter First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society - Petoskey News-Review - August 22nd, 2017
- How far do the First Amendment's protections go when it comes to hate speech? - The San Diego Union-Tribune - August 20th, 2017
- First Amendment in Peril? - City Journal - August 20th, 2017
- Letter: Peculiar First Amendment interpretation - MetroWest Daily News - August 20th, 2017
- Police must act fast to protect First Amendment rights: Robert Shibley - USA TODAY - August 18th, 2017
- Podcast: Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog) - August 18th, 2017
- How groups use 'First Amendment' permits for protests at National Parks - ABC10 - August 18th, 2017
- Last weekend's violent protests prompt First Amendment conversation - WBKO - August 18th, 2017
- Equality, Justice and the First Amendment - ACLU (blog) - August 18th, 2017
- Between the lines: Cops caught in the First Amendment war zone - Police News - August 18th, 2017
- Theres no hate speech exception to the First Amendment - The ... - August 16th, 2017
- First Amendment banned from DC Metro literally! - Washington Post - August 16th, 2017
- There's No 'Nazi' Exception to the First Amendment - National Review - August 16th, 2017
- FIRST AMENDMENT: How far does it go? - Evening News and Tribune - August 15th, 2017
- Why the First Amendment won't protect Charlottesville white supremacists from being fired - MarketWatch - August 15th, 2017
- The First Amendment on the Grounds in Charlottesville - Lawfare (blog) - August 15th, 2017
- March on Google: Self-proclaimed 'First Amendment supporters' to ... - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - August 15th, 2017
- Militiamen came to Charlottesville as neutral First Amendment protectors, commander says - Washington Post - August 14th, 2017
- Editorial, 8/13: Court strikes right balance on Westboro ruling - Lincoln Journal Star - August 14th, 2017
- Beyond the First Amendment - Washington Times - August 14th, 2017
- Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment - Washington Examiner - August 13th, 2017
- Jeffrey Lord: 'CNN caved on the First Amendment' when it fired him - Fox News - August 13th, 2017
- First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block ... - WJLA - August 13th, 2017
- DC's transit agency rejected ads touting the First Amendment (really) - Ars Technica - August 11th, 2017
- Symposium: A path through the thicket the First Amendment right of association - SCOTUSblog (blog) - August 11th, 2017
- ACLU Sues DC Metro After It Rejects Ad With Text Of 1st Amendment - NPR - August 11th, 2017
- Jeffrey Lord Speaks Out on Firing: 'CNN Caved on the First Amendment' - Mediaite - August 11th, 2017
- Newseum provides first amendment perspective - FederalNewsRadio.com - August 11th, 2017
- The First Amendment (Literally) Banned in DC - ACLU (blog) - August 10th, 2017
- Inside the First Amendment: When leaks dry up, we turn to FOIA ... - Meridian Star - August 10th, 2017
- The Fired Google Engineer, the First Amendment, and the Alt-Right - Xconomy - August 10th, 2017
- The First Amendment won't protect you from saying something your company doesn't like - Marketplace.org - August 9th, 2017
- The First Amendment: Freedom of speech in the workplace - WDAY - August 9th, 2017
- ACLU, Rutherford Institute say permit revocation violates First Amendment - The Charlottesville Newsplex - August 9th, 2017
- No shield needed: The First Amendment works just fine - The Union Leader - August 9th, 2017
- Liberal Students Unite Against First Amendment Rights of Conservatives on 'The Fosters' - NewsBusters (press release) (blog) - August 9th, 2017
- Bill Bennett on Leaker Journalists: First Amendment Not a License to ... - Fox News Insider - August 8th, 2017
- Country Singer Dustin Collins: 'Without the Second Amendment, There Is No First Amendment' (Exclusive) - Breitbart News - August 8th, 2017
- First Amendment: When leaks dry up, we turn to FOIA - hays Post - August 6th, 2017
- Letter: Anti-boycott law violates the First Amendment - Santa Cruz Sentinel - August 6th, 2017
- No Free Speech for You - Slate Magazine - August 5th, 2017
- EDITORIAL: First Amendment 2.0 - Loudoun Times-Mirror - August 5th, 2017
- In 'Direct Attack on the First Amendment,' Sessions Declares War on Leaks - Common Dreams - August 5th, 2017
- McGovern: Free speech may mean free pass for Michelle Carter - Boston Herald - August 4th, 2017
- How the First Amendment could save Don Jr. - The Hill (blog) - August 3rd, 2017
- Police confront 'First Amendment auditors' - Post Register - August 3rd, 2017
- Loudoun County resident's First Amendment case may benefit free-speech group's suit against Trump - Loudoun Times-Mirror - August 3rd, 2017
- Justice Souter, the First Amendment and the case of the synagogue standoff - Reuters - August 3rd, 2017
- RTDNA Joins Free Press Groups in Tracking First Amendment Abuse - Broadcasting & Cable - August 3rd, 2017
- Peter Berger: Students and First Amendment rights - vtdigger.org - August 3rd, 2017
- HiQ v. LinkedIn: Does First Amendment limit application of computer ... - Reuters - August 2nd, 2017
- SMU Becomes the Face of the Collegiate War On The First Amendment - The Hayride - August 2nd, 2017
- Promoting First Amendment censorship - Herald and News - August 2nd, 2017
- Court Rules Randall Violated First Amendment on Facebook - Loudoun Now - August 1st, 2017
- Free Speech & Republicans: First Amendment Trumps Punishing ... - National Review - August 1st, 2017
- The First Amendment: Free press, open meetings laws survive RI State House standoff - The Providence Journal - August 1st, 2017
- Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions - The Daily Progress - August 1st, 2017
- Randy Krehbiel: Lankford says anti-LGBT organization is exercising First Amendment rights - Tulsa World (blog) - August 1st, 2017
- Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions | Virginia ... - Roanoke Times - July 30th, 2017