AR Terrorists Get Their Deserved Punishment

Animal / Dog Law Opinions

United States v. Lang
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Dockets: 16-1694, 16‐1459

Opinion Date: November 8, 2017


Areas of Law: Animal / Dog Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Johnson and Lang traveled from California to an Illinois mink farm where they released approximately 2000 minks from their cages and destroyed or damaged other property on the farm.

While on their way to damage a fox farm, Johnson and Lang were arrested on state charges of possession of burglary tools. Johnson and Lang were charged in federal court with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), 18 U.S.C. 43(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(C).


The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of their motions to dismiss, holding that AETA is not overbroad and does not violate the First Amendment because it does not prohibit lawful advocacy that causes only loss of profits or goodwill.

AETA’s definite terms do not invite discriminatory prosecutions. Having the word “terrorism” in the title of the statute does not violate the defendants’ substantive due process rights because Congress had a rational basis for using the word.

Why is this a big deal?  Because AR ultra liberal activists believe they are special entitled citizens that can break the law because they CAN…  W R O N G!!