The first and so far only case yet brought under AETA (the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act) has been dismissed. It seems that the government did little more in its indictment than recite the statute and state that the defendants had violated it. The Constitution requires more. Without a clearly defined set of allegations, the defendant cannot possibly defend herself. The indictment must allege with specificity how they broke the law, when, and precisely by who.
While this dismissal offers reason for cautious optimism, a few cautionary words are in order. First, AETA is a beast of a law. As I have noted elsewhere, it runs afoul of both the Constitution and common sense. This dismissal did not reach the constitutionality of the law, just the unconstitutionality of the indictment. Second, this dismissal of the indictment was without prejudice, which is to say that the government can fix the indictment and refile the charges.
So, this case may not be over and, even if it is, the law lives on. So, the fight must continue.
For more skinny and the backstory on the case, go here.