Opinion ID: 803126
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Amendment and anti-tax activities

Text: [1] The First Amendment prohibits any law “abridging the freedom of speech[.]” U.S. Const. amend. I. However, the Supreme Court has carved out some limited categories of “unprotected” speech, including “obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1584 (2010) (citations omitted). At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. This exception first arose in Giboney v. Empire Stor7540 UNITED STATES v. MEREDITH age & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949), in which a state court prevented unions from picketing to force a distributor to enter an agreement that violated state anti-trade restraint law. Id. at 491-92. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, rejecting the contention that “the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.” Id. at 498. [2] In United States v. Freeman, 761 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1985), we applied this exception to a tax evasion case. The defendant was convicted of fourteen counts of aiding and abetting, and counseling violations of the tax laws. Id. at 551. The jury was not instructed on a First Amendment defense, and therefore we reversed the convictions on the twelve counseling counts. Id. at 551-52. However, we affirmed the convictions on the counts for assisting in the filing of false returns. We held that “[i]n those instances, where speech becomes an integral part of the crime, a First Amendment defense is foreclosed even if the prosecution rests on words alone.” Id. at 552.1 Meredith relies primarily on United States v. Dahlstrom, 713 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1983), which involved defendants who held seminars at which they “instructed members on how to create foreign trust organizations (FTO’s) in order to 1 At oral argument, Meredith’s counsel suggested that United States v. Alvarez, 617 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2010), requires us to invalidate any restrictions on speech. We disagree. In Alvarez, we struck down a federal statute that imposed a criminal penalty on any individual who falsely claimed to have been awarded a military decoration or medal. Id. at 1202. We held that this statute is unconstitutional because it “applies to pure speech; it imposes a criminal penalty of up to a year of imprisonment, plus a fine, for the mere utterance or writing of what is, or may be perceived as, a false statement of fact—without anything more.” Id. at 1200 (emphasis in original). The key difference between Alvarez and this case is the “anything more” element. Here, the indictment accused the defendants of not only advocating tax evasion, but actively helping customers evade the payment of taxes. UNITED STATES v. MEREDITH 7541 reduce their tax liabilities.” Id. at 1425. The defendants were convicted of conspiracy and tax fraud. We reversed the convictions on six of the tax fraud and conspiracy counts for insufficient evidence, partly because “the [F]irst [A]mendment would require a further inquiry before a criminal penalty could be enforced.” Id. at 1428. Based on the evidence presented at trial, we concluded that the exception for incitement of imminent unlawful activity did not apply because “[n]othing in the record indicates that the advocacy practiced by these defendants contemplated imminent lawless action.” Id. (emphasis in original). Dahlstrom, however, is inapposite here because it involves the First Amendment exception for inciting imminent lawless action. Because the defendants here are charged with mail fraud and conspiracy committed in part by means of speech, we instead analyze this case under Freeman’s First Amendment exception for speech that is integral to a crime. [3] For each count, we must determine whether defendants merely encouraged their customers to evade taxes, or if their speech was integral to the crime.