context: While it is true that Congress cannot save an overbroad statute by adding a rule of construction that contradicts the statute's substantive provisions, in this case the rule of construction does not contradict the plain meaning of the statute. Instead, the context of the statute dictates that "personal property" excludes solely intangible items and therefore speech or expressive conduct, such as protests or documentaries, which cause damage only to an animal enterprise's profits is not criminalized by AETA. The rule of construction in subsection (e)(1) of AETA simply reinforces the plain language of the statute.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 744 F.3d 790, 801
citation_a.parenthetical: "We are. satisfied tirat AETA includes safeguards in the form of its expression-protecting rules of construction, which preclude an interpretation according to which protected speech activity resulting in lost profits gives rise to liability. under subsection (a)(2)(A)."
citation_a.sentence: Blum v. Holder, 744 F.3d 790, 801 (1st Cir. 2014) (“We are. satisfied tirat AETA includes safeguards in the form of its expression-protecting rulés of construction, which preclude an interpretation according to which protected speech activity resulting in lost profits gives rise to liability. under subsection (a)(2)(A).”); cf. CISPES v. F.B.I., 770 F.2d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 1985) (rule of construction deemed a “valuable indication of Congress’ concern for the preservation of First Amendment rights”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 770 F.2d 468, 474
citation_b.parenthetical: rule of construction deemed a "valuable indication of Congress' concern for the preservation of First Amendment rights"
citation_b.sentence: Blum v. Holder, 744 F.3d 790, 801 (1st Cir. 2014) (“We are. satisfied tirat AETA includes safeguards in the form of its expression-protecting rulés of construction, which preclude an interpretation according to which protected speech activity resulting in lost profits gives rise to liability. under subsection (a)(2)(A).”); cf. CISPES v. F.B.I., 770 F.2d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 1985) (rule of construction deemed a “valuable indication of Congress’ concern for the preservation of First Amendment rights”).