No. 06-694 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI PAUL D. CLEMENT Solicitor General Counsel of Record ALICE S. FISHER Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL R. DREEBEN Deputy Solicitor General DEANNE E. MAYNARD Assistant to the Solicitor General DEBORAH WATSON Attorney Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18 (Supp. IV 2004) prohibits “knowingly * * * advertis[ing], promot[ing], present[ing], distribut[ing], or solicit[ing] * * * any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material” is illegal child pornography. The question presented is whether Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) is overly broad and impermissibly vague, and thus facially unconstitutional. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below........................................ 1 Jurisdiction........................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved........... 2 Statement............................................ 3 Reasons for granting the petition....................... 12 A. The court of appeals’ invalidation of an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review ............ 13 B. The court of appeals erred in striking down Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) as unconstitutionally overbroad and impermissibly vague............... 14 1. The court of appeals misinterpreted the scope of Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) ...................... 14 2. Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) is not overbroad ......... 16 3. Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) is not impermissibly vague ...................................... 19 C. The court of appeals’ decision interferes with a component of Congress’s effort to suppress the market for child pornography.................... 21 Conclusion .......................................... 22 Appendix ...........................................1a Appendix B ........................................ 46a Appendix C ........................................ 70a Appendix D ........................................ 72a Appendix E ........................................ 77a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (2002) .................................. 4, 5, 14, 19 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 126 S. Ct. 961 (2006) ............................. 19 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ............ 15 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) .......... 17 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) .......... 20 Gibson v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington, 355 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) ....................... 19 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ...... 20 Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) ................. 20 J&B Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Jackson, 152 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 1998) ...................................... 19 Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) .............. 20 Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) ........................... 18, 19 New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) .............. 19 New York State Club Asss’n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1 (1988) ................................... 17 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) ............. 16 Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984) .............. 19 Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974) ................ 21 United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994) ...................................... 16, 20 Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (2003) ................ 17 V Constitution, statutes and rules: Page U.S. Const. Amend. I .................................. 2, 4, 16 Amend. V ....................................... 2 Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 121, 110 Stat. 3009-26 (18 U.S.C. 2251 note)) ...................................... 4 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) (Supp. IV 2004) ............. 4 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(D) ......................... 4, 5 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (18 U.S.C. 2252A (2000 & Supp. IV 2004)) ................................ 77a § 501, 117 Stat. 676 (18 U.S.C. 2251 note (Supp. IV 2004)) ............................. 3, 6, 13 § 501(3), 117 Stat. 676 ................... 6, 22, 72a § 501(5), 117 Stat. 676 ...................... 6, 73a § 501(7), 117 Stat. 677 ...................... 6, 73a § 501(8), 117 Stat. 677 ...................... 7, 74a § 501(10), 117 Stat. 677 ..................... 7, 75a § 501(12), 117 Stat. 678 ..................... 6, 75a § 501(13), 117 Stat. 678 .................... 22, 75a § 501(15), 117 Stat. 678 ..................... 7, 76a § 503(1)(A)(B), 117 Stat. 680: 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(3)(B) (2000 Supp. IV 2004)) ............................... passim 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) (2000 Supp. IV 2004)) ................................... 3, 9 VI Statutes and rules—Continued: Page § 504(a), 117 Stat. 680 (18 U.S.C. 1466A (Supp. IV 2004)) ................................. 22 § 506(2), 117 Stat. 683 (18 U.S.C. 2251(d)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 2004)) ........................... 22 Miscellaneous: H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 66, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003) ................................... 14, 15, 16 S. Rep. No. 2, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003) .................................... 6, 14, 16 n TOA Insert macro to place cursor for manual TOA insert & remove this text In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-694 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States of America, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a- 45a) is reported at 444 F.3d 1286. The opinion and order of the district court (App., infra, 46a-69a) is unreported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on April 6, 2006. A petition for rehearing was denied on July 17, 2006 (App., infra, 70a-71a). On October 6, 2006, Justice Thomas extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including Novem- (1) 2 ber 14, 2006, and on November 6, 2006, he further ex- tended the time to and including December 14, 2006. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 1. The First Amendment to the United States Con- stitution provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech.” 2. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Con- stitution provides, in part, that “[n]o person shall * * * be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 3. Section 2252A of Title 18 of the United States Code provides in part: (a) Any person who— * * * * * (3) knowingly— * * * * * (B) advertises, promotes, presents, distrib- utes, or solicits through the mails, or in inter- state or foreign commerce by any means, in- cluding by computer, any material or pur- ported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported mate- rial is, or contains— (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor en- gaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engag- ing in sexually explicit conduct; * * * shall be punished [by fine and imprisonment]. 3 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(3)(B) (2000 & Supp. IV 2004). The entirety of Section 2252A, as well as the congressional findings codified at Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 501, 117 Stat. 676, are set forth in an appendix to the petition. App., infra, 72a-83a. STATEMENT Following the entry of a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, respondent was convicted of one count of know- ingly advertising, promoting, and presenting material “in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe,” that the material contains illegal child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(3)(B) (Supp. IV 2004), and one count of posses- sion of computer disks that contained images of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) (Supp. IV 2004). He was sentenced to 60 months of im- prisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and to two years of supervised release. The court of appeals reversed respondent’s conviction on the Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) count, holding that the provision was overbroad and impermissibly vague, and therefore fa- cially unconstitutional. App., infra, 1a-45a. 1. a. This case involves 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(3)(B) (Supp. IV 2004), a provision enacted in the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act). Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) provides, in pertinent part, that anyone who knowingly “advertises, promotes, presents, distrib- utes, or solicits * * * any material or purported mate- rial in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is in- tended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material” contains illegal child pornography 4 (i.e., “an obscene visual depiction