The Center for Constitutional Rights petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to review its case challenge to the federal Animal Enterprise Act, claiming it is a violation of the First Amendment.

CCR attorneys argue in their petition the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Under the law, anyone found to cause the loss of property or profits to business or other institution that uses or sells animals or animal products, or to a "person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise" can be punished. 

Under the law, non-violent violators face up to 20 years in prison, depending on the amount of profit loss. 

CCR said in a statement sent to Latin Post, "The law punishes lost profits to an animal enterprise, but makes no distinction between loss caused by criminal acts and loss caused by boycotts and other constitutionally-protected activity.

CCR's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court concerns Blum v. Holder, a suit filed by five animal rights activists who have limited or ceased their lawful advocacy out of fear of being prosecuted as terrorists.

In 2009 AETA was used to indict and arrest four activists in California for protesting, writing on sidewalks with chalk, changing, leafleting and using the internet to find information on animal researchers. One of the plaintiffs, Lauren Gazzola, was convicted and served 40 months in federal prison.

The appellate courts ruled that activist were not permitted to sue because they did not reach the unprecedented threshold that their prosecution under the law was "certainly impending."

"Courts have never required that a prosecution be imminent before a plaintiff can bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a criminal statute," said CCR senior attorney, Shayana Kadidal.  "And for good reason -- the chilling effect of laws like the AETA causes people to silence themselves out of fear of prosecution. Yet, the First Circuit's ruling requires that these individuals risk being charged as terrorists for speaking out before they can demonstration the law is unconstitutional."

Although the law, lobbied for by the Fur Commission USA, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, and pharmaceutical companies, was created to target animal rights activists. The definition is so broad, attorneys argue, it could be used to argue that labor protestors at Wal-Mart are committing acts of domestic terrorism.

The bill was passed in 2006 during the Bush Administration in response to the ongoing prosecution of the animal rights group, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, that was working to close animal testing laboratories. Six members of the group were charged for their campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences, but there was no proof the defendents were convicted under the conspiracy provision. Four people were indicted for peacefully protesting outside the homes of professors conducting research involve animal testing. The charges were eventually dismissed, but they were under house arrest for almost a year.