As you may know I am one of the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to have the laws known as 2257 and 2257A declared unconstitutional.

I received word today that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has declared those laws to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The enforcement provisions of the laws had already been determined to violate the Fourth Amendment in an earlier decision.

It’s been 11 years since we first filed this suit. It has been a long road, but at last we have won a major victory for freedom of speech.

Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!
So , in layman's terms, does this mean it's done? As in done done?

The government could still appeal to the Supreme Court.

It's been a long haul so far . . .  I'm glad you are still around,  willing and  able to continue.

Keep up the good fight for this good cause !

It affects so many of us . . .

KM

wow - tremendous respect, keep up the fight.

Thank you

You were right, and persistent

Good news is welcome this year. News that our system of law can move an issue in the direction of rationality and justice, especially so.

Congratulations!

Congrats!

Congratulations, and many, many thanks for carrying on the fight for so long.

Congrats, and thank you.

Thank-you for your work and for persevering for so long on this one!

Thanks!  We appreciate your effort!

Gratulations!

Would you please post a link to the ruling?

I’m sure it will be available on line, but I only have a pdf. I don’t know the link. Try google.

Thank you.  I never thought of trying google.    Forgive me for supposing that you might have the reference available and save us the effort of sorting through other rulings.


https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183188p.pdf

However, a once through reading makes me question your conclusion.   The nationwide injunction was struck down, meaning that the law still applies in other jurisdictions.  The ruling against you at the district court regarding the over breath claim was upheld.


Criminal Penalties
We consider separately the plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge to the Statutes’ criminal penalties attached to violations of the Statutes’ age verification, recordkeeping, and labeling requirements. The District Court held that the criminal penalties cannot be applied to enforce restrictions that themselves violate the First Amendment. We will affirm, but we reach that conclusion on different grounds than the District Court.
...
On the other hand, the Government may not enforce penalties for noncompliance with laws that the Constitution prohibits. We therefore ultimately arrive at the same conclusion the District Court reached: because we have concluded that the age verification, recordkeeping, and labeling requirements violate the First Amendment as applied to some of the plaintiffs, the criminal penalties for violating those provisions cannot be applied to those plaintiffs, either.  (bold added) 


This makes it seem like the government still has its foot in the door to apply criminal penalties.  It does not clearly strike down the provision.

FSC’s and ASMP’s  as-applied claims require individualized inquiry, and  the two associations therefore lack standing to bring those claims on behalf of their members.


…
Based on that intermediate scrutiny reasoning, the Government asserts that the age verification, record keeping, and labeling requirements should pass strict scrutiny, as well.

We are not convinced. The number of older performers employed by the plaintiffs “is not insignificant,” and requiring age verification, record keeping, and labeling for depictions of those clearly adult performers “does not protect children.” Id. at 158.  Strict scrutiny demands that “[i]f a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government’s purpose, the legislature must use that alternative.” Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. at 813.  The availability of a less restrictive alternative for these plaintiffs thus makes clear that the age verification, record keeping, and labeling requirements violates the First Amendment as applied to them.8

8    The plaintiffs propose several other alternatives to the Statutes’ requirement that they claim would make the Statutes  (reference cut off)




Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order entering a nationwide injunction and remand for the entry of relief limited to the successful as-applied plaintiffs.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we will affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part the District Court’s order entered on August 6, 2018, and will remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I’m not a lawyer so I rely on my lawyers for interpretation of this ruling. They tell me that it is very unlikely that the government would now try to enforce this law, which has been found to violate the constitution. Obviously this could all go to the Supreme Court. That’s the next step, if the government decides to appeal.

Again, I’m not a lawyer. I suggest you consult your own lawyer if you have questions about what this ruling means for your particular situation.

Some more information:

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blo … HcrB8eiCo0

Highlights . . .  Quoted from the Free Speech Coalition

A panel of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals gave FSC and the other plaintiffs a victory in this 2257 case, even if the somewhat complicated ruling did not go as far as we hoped it would. Here are the most important facts about the ruling:

    Section 2257 and 2257A of the US Criminal Code (“2257”) were ruled unconstitutional under both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, but the law was not struck down in its entirety for all producers.

    The FBI can no longer demand access to your records for random inspections.

    You are now less likely to be charged with a crime under 2257 and even less likely to be successfully prosecuted.

    Both sides of the lawsuit have 45 days to file a petition for a rehearing, so this fight isn’t finished.

    You should continue all record-keeping requirements under 2257 as currently written.

Congratulations! And Thank YOU!

Are there any links you can provide to the decision, or to any related news articles?

Congratulations on the win.

Congratulations!  Thank you for your perseverance!

Thank you, OP!

The 45 days are over now.

So where do we stand?

Did the government appeal? Is there a rehearing by the plaintiff?

On October 27 the clock started for filing petitions for certiorari, which because of Covid has been extended  to 150 days— so March 26, 2021.