|
Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
Several public interest groups brought actions challenging Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to transfer Clean Water Act (CWA) pollution permitting program for Arizona to that State. Under federal law, a state may take over the Clean Water Act pollution permitting program in its state from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if it applies to do so and meets the applicable standards. When deciding whether to transfer permitting authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued, and the EPA relied on, a Biological Opinion premised on the proposition that the EPA lacked the authority to take into account the impact of that decision on endangered species and their habitat. The plaintiffs in this case challenge the EPA's transfer decision, particularly its reliance on the Biological Opinion's proposition regarding the EPA's limited authority. The court held that the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision, and erred in determining otherwise. For that reason among others, the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded to the EPA.
|
|
Dehart v. Town of Austin |
The breeder was in the business of buying, breeding, raising, and selling of exotic and wild animals. The town passed an ordinance making it unlawful to keep certain wild animals, and the breeder filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a local ordinance. On appeal, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the town because: (1) the ordinance was not preempted by the Animal Welfare Act; (2) the ordinance was not an impermissible attempt to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause; and (3) the town did not deprive him of his property interest in his federal and state licenses without due process.
|
|
Denise Venero v. Prince George's County Maryland |
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action to challenge the Prince George's County, Maryland Pit Bull Ordinance and enforcement of the ordinance. Plaintiffs assert multiple due process and equal protection claims in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as several violations of the Fair Housing Act. The ordinance bans the keeping of pit bull terriers in the county, and requires any pit bull owners at the time the ordinance was adopted to register the dog, pay a fee, maintain a secure kennel, and keep the dog secure at all times. The court in this case found that the plaintiffs lack standing, since they could not show an injury in fact relating to the county's enforcement of the ordinance, the county has returned seized dogs to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have been afforded due process through the county's administrative process. |
|
Department of Game of Wash. v. Puyallup Tribe |
The Washington Department of Game and the Department of Fisheries brought action for declaratory judgment that members of the Puyallup Indian tribe were not exempt from application of state fishery conservation measures. The Supreme Court held that commercial net fishing by Puyallup Indians, for which the Indians have treaty protection, Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 20 L.Ed.2d 689, forecloses the bar against net fishing of steelhead trout imposed by Washington State Game Department's regulation, which discriminates against the Puyallups, and as long as steelhead fishing is permitted, the regulation must achieve an accommodation between the Puyallups' net-fishing rights and the rights of sports fishermen.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Great Apes under the AWA |
This paper first addresses the need for protection of Great Apes by the Animal Welfare Aact (AWA), and the method by which they are afforded that protection. It then identifies and analyzes the types of activities that are regulated under the AWA, including commercial trade, exhibition, scientific research, and transportation. The Act requires that apes possessed for any of those purposes are maintained pursuant to certain minimum standards of care. Those standards are outlined and explained in Section IV. While APHIS is ultimately responsible for enforcing the AWA and USDA regulations, the agency does not have exclusive regulatory authority over apes used for those purposes. In addition to a variety of other federal laws, all regulated facilities must comply with all state and local laws governing the import, possession, use, and treatment of apes. The final portion of this paper analyzes the effect that the AWA has on those state and local laws. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Great Apes under the CHIMP Act |
The following discussion outlines key events from the recent past that led to the surplus of chimpanzees in U.S. research facilities and the actions that the government has taken to reduce the number of chimpanzees that are maintained in those facilities. The remainder of the discussion provides a detailed analysis of the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection Act and an overview of the current status of the national chimpanzee sanctuary system. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Great Apes under the Endangered Species Act |
This paper first examines the historical listing of Great Apes under the Endangered Species Act, including the “split listing” of chimpanzees. It then analyzes how the listing status of Great Apes limits their use in various situations such as private possession, scientific research, and entertainment. Finally, the paper discusses the applicable provisions of CITES that restrict the international trade in Great Apes. |
|
Detailed Discussion of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act |
The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) is federal legislation that requires that only humane methods of slaughtering and handling livestock in connection with slaughtering be used. Before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut, livestock animals must be rendered insensible to pain by being gassed, electrocuted, or shot in the head with a firearm or captive bolt stunner. HMSA does not apply to birds or animals killed in ritual slaughter, and lacks a general enforcement provision.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act |
This paper summarizes the history of the MBTA. It describes the current version of the law, including administrative responsibilities, the criteria used to define the list of covered birds species, the types of behavior that trigger enforcement, and the penalties for violators. The paper covers the major legal controversies that characterize the split in the courts’ decisions and proposed amendments. It also highlights some of the MBTA issues making headlines today. The discussion concludes with questions about the Act’s future, and Part VII is a timeline of the important moments in the MBTA. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Wildlife Services |
This detailed discussion examines the history and philosophy of the USDA's "Wildlife Services." This agency has a mission "to provide Federal leadership in managing conflicts with wildlife.” However, animal advocates have criticized the lack of science backing up the antiquated approach in managing wildlife and human economic conflicts. This paper explores the legal authorities and internal philosophies that guide WS’ activities; how WS selects and implements a variety of nonlethal and lethal methods for controlling wildlife; and contemporary challenges to WS’ practices. |
