Since most folks on this site might not know I'll explain how appeals to the US Supreme Court work.

1) First of all, the Supreme Court ONLY deals with issues relative to the US Constitution. An appeal on ANY other ground would indeed be rejected out of hand.

2) A writ for appeal is submitted to one of the Justices who then decides whether merits bringing to the full court. I am NOT saying that the Justice would personally see all such submissions as some might have their assistants pre screen out the obvious nonsense. Part of the job of lawyers specializing in these writs to know which Justice most likely to want to see the case taken on by the Court.

One special situation with regard to this worth noting. While usually the Court does not overturn precedent it does happen and so sometimes appeals submitted on that basis. In other words, submitted to a Justice who the lawyers believe to be unhappy with that precedent and wants it changed. That judgement might be correct but even so the Justice might choose not to try taking the case to the full Court (believes THIS case not giving a good chance to obtain that result).

Given ZERO information about this appeal there is no reason to suppose anything fishy. Before concluding that we'd want to know the grounds for the appeal and to which Justice submitted for consideration.

The decision in the SHAC 7 case was filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on October 14, 2009. Although our hopes were high that the court would recognize the constitutional and evidentiary problems raised in the SHAC 7 case, instead the court affirmed all counts and convictions against all defendants. As we have an opportunity to read through the 60 page decision and consult with the defendants and legal team on the case, we will post a more detailed analysis and response.

For now, the decision comes as a shock and disappointment, and another blow to our First Amendment rights. This decision seems to establish precedent that pure speech can easily land you in court and the threshhold of evidence required to send someone to prison is abhorrently low.

The overarching issues in this appeal are whether the AEPA violates the First Amendment, whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendants of the various charges
against them, and challenges to the jury instructions.

Because we find that the AEPA is neither unconstitutional on its face, nor unconstitutional as-applied to SHAC, Kjonaas, Gazzola, Conroy, Stepanian, Harper and Fullmer, we will affirm their convictions for conspiracy to violate the AEPA. In addition, we
find that there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendants on all charges involving interstate stalking.

Finally, we find no flaw in the jury instructions, and we will therefore affirm the
Judgment of the District Court in all other respects.

Read it yourselves

The crime of "conspiracy" is ALWAYS "just about speech".

Can't defend by saying "only talking about it" but can defend by claiming "just joking around, not seriously intending to actually do anything". In which case up to the courts to decide whether that's true or not (a finding of "fact").