American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2002)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other cases with the same name, see American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft.

ACLU v. Ashcroft

Argued November 28, 2001
Decided May 13, 2002


Full case name:	John Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.

Citations:	535 U.S. 564; 122 S. Ct. 1700; 152 L. Ed. 2d 771; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3421; 70 U.S.L.W. 4381; 30 Media L. Rep. 1801; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4057; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 5183; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 256

Prior history:	On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14419 (3d Cir. Pa., 2000)

Subsequent history:	On remand: ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2003); affirmed, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)

Holding

The Court found that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was not impermissibly overbroad simply because it relies on community standards to define "material that is harmful to minors."

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

Case opinions

Majority by: Thomas (parts I, II, IV)
Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia (in full); O'Connor (Parts I, II, III-B, IV); Breyer (Parts I, II, IV)
Concurrence by: O'Connor
Concurrence by: Breyer
Concurrence by: Kennedy
Joined by: Souter, Ginsburg
Dissent by: Stevens

Laws applied

Child Online Protection Act

American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) (also called Ashcroft v. ACLU or Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union) was a 2002 United States legal court case involving the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States government under the George W. Bush administration. The Bush administration was represented by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Supreme Court of the United States decided the case, which began in 1999, and found that, contra the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "COPA's reliance on community standards to identify 'material that is harmful to minors' does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for purposes of the First Amendment" (majority opinion).

COPA was Congress's second attempt to criminalize the distribution of certain information over the Internet by prohibiting child pornography, including simulated pornography and artwork.