Pleadings, Briefs, and Jury Charges


Full Site Search


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 (2006)

Plaintiff's Attorney:   Bruce A. Wagman; Howard M. Crystal; Katherine A. Meyer

Defendant's Attorney:   John S. Koppel; Michael J. Singer

3rd Party Amicus or Intervening Party:   National Association for Biomedical Research, Intervenor-Appellee

3rd Party Attorney:   Robert A. Long

Topic: Zoo regulations/policy

Case File #:   04-15788

Jurisdiction:   United States

Year Case Filed:   2006

Name of the Document:   Ninth Circuit Opinion

Printible Version

In this federal action, plaintiffs (ALDF, the AWI, and three individuals) challenged the USDA's decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of on-human primates in order to comply with the Animal Welfare Act.  While the district court found that the USDA's decision did not constitute a reviewable final agency decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court did indeed have authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the agency's decision not to create a policy.

On June 4, 2007, the Court vacated the previous opinion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice.  Two judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting in part.


United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinion (filed 11/22/2006 ) (pdf file - 2.42 MB)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Order granting sua sponte vote en banc (01/17/2007 ) (pdf file - 51.31 KB)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Order dismissing appeal and the previous opinion (06/04/2007) (pdf file 31.69 KB)

Concurring Opinion of Judge Thomas (06/04/2007 (pdf file 73.81 KB)

Concurring Opinion of Judge Bybee (06/04/2007) (pdf file 61.10 KB)


Top of Page