Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't. of State Apellant's Reply Brief
Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't. of State Apellant's Reply Brief
Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't. of State Apellant's Reply Brief
Document: 00513400133
Page: 1
Alan Gura
Counsel of Record
GURA & POSSESSKY, PLLC
916 Prince Street, Suite 107
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.835.9085/703.997.7665
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 2
William B. Mateja
POLSINELLI P.C.
2950 N. Harwood, Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
214.397.0030/Fax 214.397.0033
William T. Tommy Jacks
David S. Morris
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
One Congress Plaza, Suite 810
111 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
512.472.5070/Fax 512.320.8935
Josh Blackman
1303 San Jacinto Street
Houston, TX 77002
202.294.9003/Fax 713.646.1766
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 3
Plaintiffs:
Defense Distributed, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.
Defendants:
U.S. Dept of State, John F. Kerry, Directorate of Defense Trade
Controls, Kenneth B. Handelman, Brian H. Nilsson, C. Edward
Peartree, Sarah J. Heidema, Glenn Smith
Plaintiffs Counsel:
Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, PLLC; Matthew A. Goldstein, Matthew
A. Goldstein, PLLC; William B. Mateja, Polsinelli P.C.; William T.
Tommy Jacks, David Morris, Fish & Richardson P.C.; Josh Blackman
Defendants Counsel:
Loretta Lynch, Michael S. Raab, Daniel Bentele Hahs Tenny, Eric J.
Soskin, Stuart J. Robinson, Richard L. Durban, Benjamin C. Mizer,
Anthony J. Coppolino, Zachary C. Richter, U.S. Department of
Justice
Amici Curiae for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Representative Thomas Massie (Kentucky)
Representative Brian Babin (Texas)
Representative K. Mike Conaway (Texas)
i
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 4
ii
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 5
iii
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of Interested Persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Table of Authorities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Argument.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I.
II.
III.
A.
B.
C.
D.
IV.
V.
iv
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 7
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Certificate of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bond v. United States,
134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8
Christensen v. Harris County,
529 U.S. 576 (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.,
486 U.S. 750 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.,
535 U.S. 525 (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.,
475 U.S. 41 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-20
Commodity Futures Trading Commn v. Vartuli,
228 F.3d 94 (2nd Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Consumer Prod. Safety Commn v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.,
447 U.S. 102 (1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31
FDIC v. Meyer,
510 U.S. 471 (1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
561 U.S. 1 (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
vi
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 9
vii
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 10
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 11
22 C.F.R. 120.17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
22 U.S.C. 2778(h). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12
Other Authorities
49 Fed. Reg. 47,682 (Dec. 6, 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Blacks Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Br. Amicus Curiae for the United States,
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, No. 13-502.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
H. Rpt. 96-1540 (Dec. 22, 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Letter of Sen. Daines, et al., to Sec. Kerry & Dep. Asst
Sec. Dearth, Aug. 3, 2015, available at
https://www.daines.senate.gov/imo/media/
doc/ITAR%20 Amendment--Revisions%20
to%20Definitions;%20Data%20Transmission
%20and%20Storage.pdf (last visited Feb. 27, 2016) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Letter of Sens. Johnson & Grassley to Sec. Kerry,
July 16, 2015, available at http://www.
grassley.senate .gov/sites/default/files/judiciary
/upload/2015-07-16%20CEG%20%2B%20
RHJ%20to%20State%20Deparment%20%28
ITAR%29.pdf (last visited Feb. 27, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Petition for Certiorari,
District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
How to Unblock US Websites Using DNS Proxy,
https://www.smartdnsproxy.com/page/howto-unblock-us- websites-using-dns-proxy.
aspx#.VtJrm-a37PY (last visited Feb. 27, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ix
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 12
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 13
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 14
ARGUMENT
I. DEFENDANTS FAIL TO ESTABLISH ANY CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY
FOR THEIR IMPOSITION OF A PRIOR RESTRAINT.
In 1978, referencing ITARs potential as a prior restraint, the Office
of Legal Counsel believe[d] that a more clear cut indication of
Congressional judgment concerning the need for such a measure is
in order. ROA.240. Nearly forty years later, Defendants offer no
Congressional findings, hearing testimony, or any other legislative
record upon which this Court can conclude that Congress ever intended
to regulate public speech under the AECA.
But that is not to say that Congress has remained silent. In 1980, a
House Subcommittee directed the State Department to address the
constitutional objections identified in the 1978 DOJ memorandum.
ROA.925.2 Amici Members of Congress explain at length how
Defendants interpretation boldly and impermissibly departs from
Congressional intent. See Br. Amicus Curiae of Representative Thomas
Massie, et al. (Congressional Amici) 10. Amici Representatives add
that no enumerated power permits banning domestic publication of
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 15
information. Id. 18-22. For good measure, thirty senators have opposed
Defendants proposed codification of their prior restraint.3
Instead of providing any evidence of Congressional authorization for
their prior restraint, Defendants rely on (1) a broad statement of
authority to control exports of technical data; (2) their belief that
publishing technical data on the Internet is an export; and (3) alleged
deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984). Each of these arguments fails.
First, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendants have the authority to
license disclosures of technical data in non-public settings, disclosures
of classified information, and direct assistance to foreign nationals with
respect to defense articles.4 But Defendants power to control arms
Letter of Sen. Daines, et al., to Sec. Kerry & Dep. Asst Sec.
Dearth, Aug. 3, 2015, available at https://www.daines.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/ITAR%20Amendment--Revisions%20to%20Definitions;
%20Data%20Transmission%20and%20Storage.pdf (last visited Feb. 27,
2016) (28 Senators); Letter of Sens. Johnson & Grassley to Sec. Kerry,
July 16, 2015, available at http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/
files/judiciary/upload/2015-07-16%20CEG%20%2B%20RHJ%20to%20
State%20Deparment%20%28ITAR%29.pdf (last visited Feb. 27, 2016).
3
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 16
exports is not unlimited. They cannot take any action, no matter how
broad or severe, merely because it might have the ancillary or
incidental effect of impacting the arms trade. This case does not
concern plans to illicitly aid some foreign actor, but an astonishing
governmental effort to restrict public speech not directed at a specific
person. Before addressing the difficult constitutional questions raised
by Defendants conduct, it is indeed fair to askas OLC once did
whether in enacting the AECA, Congress authorized the Defendants to
impose a prior restraint against public speech.
We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the
starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute
itself. Consumer Prod. Safety Commn v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S.
102, 108 (1980). There is zero evidence that Congress shared
Defendants views of what it means to export something. Export
being undefined in the AECA, this Court must construe [that]
statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994); New Orleans Depot Servs.,
Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, 718 F.3d
384, 391 (5th Cir. 2013).
5
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 17
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 18
Both the EAR and ITAR definitions of export include oral and
visual disclosures to foreign persons in the U.S. or abroad. See 15
C.F.R. 734.2(b) and 22 C.F.R. 120.17.
5
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 19
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 20
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 21
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 22
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 23
12
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 24
public information on firearms not in excess of .50 caliber. ROA.245246. And in Bernstein, the State Department unconditionally stated,
the Department does not seek to regulate the means themselves by
which information is placed in the public domain. Appellants Add. 23,
26. Although one of the Governments Bernstein pleadings identifies
certain types of information as examples (i.e., Information in the
public domain includes), it does not limit the Governments position
to those types of information. Id. at 29. Nor do Defendants offer an
argument as to why their technical data must be excluded from the
Governments historic position regarding prior restraints.
Setting aside for now (see infra) Defendants misleading suggestion
that CAD files have the exclusive function of facilitat[ing] the
automated production of firearms, Appellees Br. 31, Defendants claim
that the prior government positions are irrelevant because these did
not concern CAD files also ignores the fact that this case involves
design drawings, rendered images, and other technical information on
firearms that are not CAD files. ROA.131 13.
Even if CAD files could automatically produce a firearm (they
cannot), such files are not singled out for special treatment in the DOJ
13
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 25
A.
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 26
15
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 27
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 28
Notwithstanding their steadfast insistence that ITAR is contentneutral, Defendants admit that they impose their prior restraint based
on the content of Plaintiffs speech. See, e.g., Appellants Br. 17
(claiming ITAR control because the files relate to the creation of
firearms that appear on the U.S. Munitions List.). Defendants
commodity jurisdiction process further evidences how their prior
restraint is content-based, because it requires an in-depth case-by-case
review of content to determine whether ITAR, and hence, the prior
restraint applies. See 22 C.F.R. 120.4.
There is no escaping the fact that such [a] law that is content based
on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the governments
benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of animus toward
the ideas contained in the regulated speech. Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
135 S. Ct. 2218, 2228 (2015) (quotation omitted). And a speech
regulation targeted at a specific subject matter is content based even if
17
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 29
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 30
Available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-502_pet_amcu_usa.a
uthcheckdam.pdf
7
19
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 31
The difference helps explain why Renton has apparently not been
applied beyond the adult speech arena.
8
20
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 32
21
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 33
speech confirms its broad scope. Below, they suggested that Plaintiffs
merely filter access to their websites to domestic IP addresses.
ROA.523, n.4. However, as any unintentional disclosure to a foreign
person is a strict liability offense under ITAR, relying on IP address
filtering to keep oneself on the right side of the law is hardly prudent.
IP addresses can be faked (spoofed) quite easily, allowing foreign
nationals to access files on the Internet domestically or abroad at
Plaintiffs peril.10 And, even were Plaintiffs somehow able to limit
access to domestic IP addresses, there is no way to stop a foreign
person from looking at (or using) a U.S.-based internet connection.
Every embassy in Washington is just steps away from free, domestic IP
WiFi.11
Defendants brief here does not invoke IP filtering, suggesting only
that Defense Distributed mak[e] the files available for U.S. citizens to
It doesnt take James Bonds Q to access geographically
restricted websites. Applications for defeating geo-blocking are readily
found on the Internet. See, e.g., How to Unblock US Websites Using
DNS Proxy, https://www.smartdnsproxy.com/page/how-to-unblock-uswebsites-using-dns-proxy.aspx#.VtJrm-a37PY (last visited Feb. 27,
2016).
10
22
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 34
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 35
restraint. And Americans scientific and technical output has long been
susceptible of being employed by bad actors throughout the world. All
information, not just that related to arms, might be helpful to villains.
Terrorist groups dependent on oil revenues, for example, might find
useful all manner of Americans speech concerning geology or
petroleum engineering. But this is not enough to justify a prior
restraint.
Even less persuasive are Defendants arguments alleging that
Plaintiffs public speech could damage U.S. foreign relations with
other nations. Appellees Br. at 23. Other nations, claim Defendants,
might be offended if Americans dont watch what they say about gunmakinga traditional American pursuit secured by our Bill of
Rightsas such information might destabilize their regimes. Since
when are Americans silenced to please foreign leaders? Had Chinese
authorities, offended by Americans online discussion of uncomfortable
issues (Tiananmen Square massacre, conquest of Tibet, repression of
the Falun Gong, etc.), threatened negative consequences for our
relations with that highly consequential nation, would that justify a
prior restraint? Respectfully, the Presidents role in foreign relations in
24
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 36
no way enhances his executive power, and does not allow him to violate
clearly established constitutional rights. [N]o agreement with a foreign
nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of
Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 16 (1957) (plurality); Bond v. United States,
134 S. Ct. 2077, 2101 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring) (We would not give
the Government support of the Holland principle the time of day were
we confronted with treaty-implementing legislation that abrogated the
freedom of speech or some other constitutionally protected individual
right.).
D.
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 37
26
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 38
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 39
28
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 40
29
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 41
30
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 42
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 43
common lawful use in the Washington, D.C. of 2008, but the Court
could look to American experience and expectations and strike down
Washingtons handgun ban.
Brady correctly notes that some courts have gone beyond common
use, and applied various balancing tests to sanction the prohibition of
arms of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes. Those
courts erred. Heller plainly stands for the proposition that if an arm
passes the common use test, it cannot be banned. The Court employed
no balancing test to see if handguns were too dangerous to allow
notwithstanding their common use status. But even so, this case does
not address any particular arm, but rather the knowledge and means of
making arms. The Government already requires that guns contain a
minimum detectable metal content. 18 U.S.C. 922(p). If it wished to
regulate some other aspects of 3D printed guns, e.g., by requiring their
serialization or licensing their manufacture, that would be another
story. But restricting the dissemination of practical gunsmithing
knowledge that citizens would apply in the traditional making of arms
plainly violates the Second Amendment.
32
Case: 15-50759
V.
Document: 00513400133
Page: 44
33
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 45
34
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 46
See www.pmddtc.state.gov/commodity_jurisdiction/
determinationAll.html
14
35
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 47
36
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 48
14. Ironically, the fact the court in Wu felt the need to draw such a
distinction provides further support for Plaintiffs void for vagueness
claim because it illustrates how courts do not ascribe any particular
knowledge of the ITAR to members of the public who have no
connection to international trade. See also United States v. Lee, 183
F.3d 1029, 1032 (9th Cir. 1999) (The regulation at issue is directed to a
relatively small group of sophisticated international businessmen);
United States v. Swarovski, 592 F.2d 131, 133 (2d Cir. 1979) (We are
dealing here with a regulation of limited scope aimed at a small and
relatively sophisticated group of persons.).
CONCLUSION
A preliminary injunction against ITARs enforcement as a prior
restraint is warranted.
Dated: February 29, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
37
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 49
38
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 50
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this, the 29th day of February, 2016, I electronically filed the
attached Brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by using the CM/ECF system.
Participants in this appeal are registered CM/ECF users who will be
served by the CM/ECF system on February 29, 2016.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed this the 29th day of February, 2016.
39
Case: 15-50759
Document: 00513400133
Page: 51
40