Narrative Opinion Summary
The court affirms the district court's order from October 2, 2001, regarding the appellants' First Amendment challenge to sections 302 and 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, referencing the precedent set in *Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno*, 205 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Following the amendment of the statute by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the court upholds part of the judgment, vacates the judgment and injunction concerning the terms “personnel” and “training,” and remands the case to the district court for further proceedings as appropriate. The court does not address any additional issues presented by the parties. Each party is responsible for their own costs on appeal, and the previous decision in *Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Justice*, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2003), is vacated.
Legal Issues Addressed
Costs on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Each party is required to bear their own costs on appeal as determined by the court.
Reasoning: Each party is responsible for their own costs on appeal, and the previous decision in *Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Justice*, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2003), is vacated.
First Amendment Challenge to Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms the district court's decision regarding the challenge to sections 302 and 303, upholding the precedent set in earlier cases.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's order from October 2, 2001, regarding the appellants' First Amendment challenge to sections 302 and 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, referencing the precedent set in *Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno*, 205 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Impact of Statutory Amendments on Legal Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upholds part of the judgment and vacates the judgment and injunction related to specific terms following the amendment of the statute.
Reasoning: Following the amendment of the statute by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the court upholds part of the judgment, vacates the judgment and injunction concerning the terms 'personnel' and 'training,' and remands the case to the district court for further proceedings as appropriate.
Judicial Procedures on Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court remands the case to the district court for further proceedings as necessitated by the changes in statutory language.
Reasoning: Following the amendment of the statute by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the court upholds part of the judgment, vacates the judgment and injunction concerning the terms 'personnel' and 'training,' and remands the case to the district court for further proceedings as appropriate.