Pleadings, Briefs, and Jury Charges

Navigation

Full Site Search

Loading...

The navigation select boxes below will direct you to the selected page when you hit enter.

Topical Explanations

Primary Legal Materials

Select by Subject

Select by Species

Select Administrative Topic


World Law

Secondary Legal Materials

Great Apes and the Law

Great Apes and the Law

Maps of State Laws

Map of USA
ALDF v. Veneman (2003)

Plaintiff's Attorney:   HOWARD M. CRYSTAL, KATHERINE A. MEYER (Meyer & Glitzenstein); WENDY M. ANDERSON, Attorneys for plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Valerie Buchanan, Jane Garrison, and Nancy Megna.

Defendant's Attorney:   PETER D. KEISLER, Assistant Attorney General and THOMAS MILLET, Assistant Branch Director, MARIA HORTENSIA RIOS, Trial Attorney, Federal Programs Branch United States Department of Justice

Topic: AWA/APHIS

Jurisdiction:   California - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Year Case Filed:   2003


Printible Version



This action concerns a lawsuit filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), et al, over the lack of action by the federal agency, the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to adopt a policy on what constitutes appropriate conditions for primates in federally licensed or registered facilities.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the failure of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United State Department of Agriculture to make a final decision concerning the defendants' proposed “Policy On Environment Enhancement For Nonhuman Primates.” See 64 Fed. Reg. 38,145 (July 15, 1999) (Policy). APHIS determined at least seven years ago that APHIS enforcement officials and the regulated community urgently need such a policy to insure that primates are housed in “physical environments adequate to promote the[ir] psychological well-being,” as required by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 7 U.S.C. § 2143. By failing to make a final decision on the proposed Policy, defendants are violating the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143, and are unreasonably delaying and/or unlawfully withholding agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

Chronology of Documents:

Complaint (07/22/2003) (pdf file 58 KB)

Motion to Dismiss (11/19/2003) (pdf. file 106 KB)

 

Top of Page