Stipulation of Non-enforcement between Plaintiffs and Dept. of Justice in ACLU v. Reno trial

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JANET RENO, in her official capacity as 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 
Defendant. 

Civ. A. No. 96-0963  

 

---

STIPULATION OF NON-ENFORCEMENT

At the request of the three-judge Court convened in this case under 28 U.S.C. Section 2284, and for the purpose of assisting the Court in establishing a more orderly schedule for conducting a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

 

1. Plaintiffs will present evidence in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on March 21, and 22, 1996 (with April 1, 1996, available if necessary to conclude plaintiffs' case, or another date to be agreed-upon by the parties or set by the Court).

2. Defendant will present her evidence in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April 11 and 12, 1996. Plaintiffs may seek permission for limited rebuttal. 

3. In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Court on February 15, 1996, the Temporary Restraining Order as previously granted remains in force until the three-judge court hears Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in accordance with the foregoing schedule and has decided the motion. 

4. The defendant stipulates that she will not initiate any investigations or prosecutions for violations of Section 223(d) for conduct occurring after enactment of this provision until the three-judge court hears Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in accordance with the foregoing schedule and has decided the motion. To the extent legally permitted, defendant retains her full authority to investigate or prosecute any violation of Section 223(a)(1)(B), as amended, and Section 223(d) as to conduct which occurs or occurred during any period of time after enactment of these provisions (including for the period of time to which this stipulation applies) should the Court deny plaintiffs' motion or, if the motion is granted, should these provisions ultimately be upheld. 

5. This stipulation does not extend to or restrict any action by the United States in connection with any investigations or prosecutions concerning child pornography or concerning any communication, material, or information that is obscene. 

FOR THE DEFENDANT  

FRANK W. HUNGER
Assistant Attorney General 

MICHAEL R. STILES
United States Attorney 

MARK R. KMETZ
Assistant United States Attorney 

DENNIS G. LINDER
Director, Federal Programs Branch 

THEODORE C. HIRT
Assistant Branch Director 

[signature: A. Coppolino DATE: 2/23/96]
ANTHONY J.COPPOLINO
JASON R. BARON
MARY E. KOSTEL
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
901 E. Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 514-4782 

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS  

[signature:C. Hansen DATE: 2/24/96]
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN
MARJORIE HEINS
ANN BEESON
STEVEN R. SHAPIRO
American Civil Liberties Union Fnd.
132 West 43rd St.
New York, New York 10036
(212) 944-9800 

STEFAN PRESSER
ACLU of Pennsylvania
125 South Ninth St. Suite 701
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 923-4357 

LAURA K. ABLE
CATHERINE WEISS
Reproductive Freedom Project
American Civil Liberties Union Fdn.
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
212-944-9800 

DAVID L. SOBEL
MARC ROTENBERG
Electronic Privacy Information Center
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 301
Washington, D.C. 20003
212-544-9240 

MICHAEL GODWIN
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1550 Bryant St., Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-436-9333 

ROGER EVANS
Legal Action for Reproduction Rights
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
810 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019
212-261-4708 

SO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1996. 

BY THE COURT:  

STEWART DALZELL
United States District Judge