Summary:

In this case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Vermont's harmful to minors clause as applied to the Internet violated the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause (6).  Plaintiffs included the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the ACLU of Vermont, the American Association of Publishers, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, Northshire Information, Inc., PSINet, Inc., the Recording Industry Association of America, and the Sexual Health Network, Inc.

Documents:

1. Plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
2. Press release for filing of complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
3. Motion to Amend Complaint
4.Memorandum in support of stipulated motion to amended complaint
5. Judge Murtha's decision
6. Decision of Second Circuit Court of Appeals
7. Appellees' Motion for rehearing
8. Second Circuit Court denies plaintiffs petition for rehearing

History:

On February 7, 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont challenging the Vermont harmful to minors on the Internet statute. The law is similar to those successfully challenged in New York, New Mexico, Virginia and Michigan.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on April 17, 2001.  Defendants filed an opposing memorandum and a motion to stay pending attempts by the Attorney General to amend the statute.  On the last day of the legislative session, the Vermont legislature amended the statute.  Judge Murtha then denied the stay as moot, and denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction based on the amendment of the statute.

Following a hearing in February, Judge Murtha found the statute unconstitutional and granted a preliminary injunction in Brattleboro, Vermont on April 19, 2002. The State appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on February 6, 2003.  On August 27, the Second Circuit Court rendered its decision -- affirming in part and modifying the scope of the remedy (6).  The decision of Judge Murtha appears to limit the scope of the injunction to the two plaintiffs.  Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed for rehearing, the defendants on the meaning of the statute, and the plaintiffs on the scope of the remedy.  The three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied both the defendants' and the plaintiffs motion for rehearing.  On January 29, 2004, Judge Murtha held a final status hearing.  He issued a judgment and order, enjoining Vermont and all local prosecutors from enforcing the harmful to minors provisions against Internet communications.