Endangered Species
Title![]() |
Summary |
---|---|
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. |
|
Gordon v. Norton |
|
Gray Wolf Legal Challenges: 2005 to Present | |
Great Apes | |
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc. v. Servheen |
|
H.J. Justin & Sons, Inc. v. Brown | In this case, plaintiff filed suit challenging the California Penal Code, specifically sections 653o and 653r. Plaintiff manufactured boots from the hides of animals, including the hides of the African elephant, the Indonesian python, and the Wallaby kangaroo. Section 653o and 653r of the California Penal Code prevented plaintiff from selling his boots in California because the provisions forbid the sale of products made from dead bodies, or any part of the elephant, python, or kangaroo. Plaintiff challenged these provisions arguing that the provisions were preempted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, thus making the provisions unconstitutional. The plaintiff also argued that the provisions were unconstitutional because of the burden placed on interstate commerce which violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, the court held that the provisions of the California Penal Code were not unconstitutional and dismissed plaintiff’s claim. The court looked to whether or not the provisions were expressly or impliedly preempted and determined that because the provisions were not expressly preempted the court needed to do an analysis of implied preemption. Looking to legislative history, the court found that Congress did not intend to preempt the provisions of the California Penal Code with the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Lastly, the court held that the California statue was not a burden on interstate commerce because Congress was aware of the existence of the California provisions and decided that the Endangered Species Act would not affect the California provisions. As a result, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim and held for the defendant. |
HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION | |
HARMING THE TINKERER: THE CASE FOR ALIGNING STANDING AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ANALYSIS IN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT | |
Hawaiian Crow (Alala) v. Lujan |
|
HI - Endangered Species - Chapter 195D. Conservation of Aquatic Life, Wildlife, and Land Plants | Hawaii endangered species law prohibits any taking, transport or commerce in designated species. It further outlines conservation programs that mandate continued research on listed species. Broad arrest and search and seizure provisions are given to law enforcement officials to enforce these acts. Violation of the regulations result in a misdemeanor conviction with both criminal fines and administrative fines that graduate for subsequent convictions. |