After weeks of legal and other research by ISAR’s chairman, Professor Henry Mark Holzer, and Lance Gotko, Esq., of the New York law firm Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman, ISAR’s friend-of-the-court brief in United States v. Stevens has been filed in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the Stevens case because a lower federal appeals court held unconstitutional the federal statute criminalizing the making, selling or possessing depictions of “crush videos” and other torture and killing of animals.
ISAR’s brief is in support of the government and argues, in effect, that the statute is constitutional.
Our amicus curiae brief is now available at http://isaronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/US_v_Stevens.pdf.
A brief suggestion to those interested in reading the brief . . . . . . . . . . . .
The basic issue presented to the Supreme Court by the Stevens case is whether the federal statute is constitutional.
For non-lawyers, and even for some unfamiliar with constitutional law and the task of the Supreme Court, portions of ISAR’s brief may be difficult to understand completely. We have two suggestions.
First, read the brief in this order: Summary of Argument (pages 2-3); Introduction (pages 3-7); Point III (pages 16-26); Point IV (pages 26-34); Conclusion (pages 34-36); Point I (pages 7-12); Point II (pages 12-16); Interest of Amicus Curiae (unnumbered page 1).
Second, ask a lawyer of your acquaintance to explain the more technical legal aspects. ISAR is proud of our “friend-of-the-court” brief and the statement it makes in behalf of animal rights. We have gone to court for the animals before and, only if we have your financial support can we continue to do so.