Defense Fires Back, Citing First Amendment
Rivera’s legal team, led by Edward R. Shohat of Jones Walker LLP, argued that the law infringes on free speech and is impermissibly vague. Shohat framed the challenge as groundbreaking, calling it “the first prior restraint First Amendment attack on this kind of FARA case.” He further claimed that DOJ policy, outlined in a February memorandum by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, limited prosecutions to espionage-related FARA cases, not lobbying disputes.
Counsel for Nuhfer, David O. Markus and Margot Moss, echoed this sentiment, blasting prosecutors for pushing forward when “the Department of Justice has made it clear that these cases should not go forward.”
Prosecutors Counter “Vagueness” Claims
Prosecutors rejected the defense’s vagueness arguments, pointing out that terms such as “predominantly” and “directly” are widely used in other statutes courts have upheld. They emphasized that FARA prosecutions require proof of willful violations, leaving little risk of accidental infractions.
“The law doesn’t prohibit speech,” the government stressed in its filing. “It ensures the public knows when political advocacy is being carried out on behalf of a foreign power.”
