|
Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth |
This case concerns the practice of catching yellowfin tuna by encircling dolphins with purse-seine nets. The dispute centers over whether tuna sellers may label tuna as dolphin-safe if caught with such nets. An environmental group brought suit against the Secretary of Commerce after he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that tuna purse seine fishing harmed depleted dolphin stocks in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision that the action by the Secretary was arbitrary and capricious where the agency's decision-making process was influenced to some degree by foreign policy considerations rather than science alone. Further, the finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was not rationally connected to the best available scientific evidence.
|
|
Eco-Terrorism in the Southern Ocean: A Dangerous Byproduct of the Tangled Web of International Whaling Conventions and Treaties |
Utilizing a research exception granted under the international moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission, Japanese whalers have been harvesting endangered whales in the Southern Ocean. The anti-whaling activist group, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, also operates in the Southern Ocean by locating Japanese whaling vessels in order to bring an immediate halt to all whaling activities, often employing violent tactics designed to injure whaling vessels and property. Sea Shepherd operates under an apparent mandate of the United Nations World Charter for Nature allowing individuals to “[i]mplement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment.” The multitude of vague international conventions and treaties governing the Southern Ocean have therefore created a tangled and confusing web of authority where both Japanese whalers and Sea Shepherd have arguable claims of operating under legitimate legal mandates. In this note, Alana Preston argues that individual countries should enforce their domestic laws to prevent the Japanese from whaling, so private entities, like Sea Shepherd, will not. |
|
Eddleman v. U.S. |
An action was brought against the BLM under the Federal Tort Claims Act claiming that the government was negligent in failing to inform the adopters that they would not be eligible to receive title if they intended to sell the horses to slaughter. The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, characterizing the issue as one sounding in contract, based upon the PMCA, and one that therefore should be brought before the U.S. Claims Court.
|
|
Edwards v. Shanley |
Automobile driver fled scene of a traffic stop and sustained serious injuries when he was attacked by a police dog, which was allowed to continue for 5 - 7 minutes. Plaintiff brought § 1983 action, alleging that the use of the police dog constituted excessive force, and that the other officer failed to intervene and stop the attack, both of which violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals held that the use of the police dog to help track and initially subdue the driver was constitutional, but permitting the dog to continue to attack the driver constituted excessive force.
|
|
Empacadora de Carnes de Fresnillo, S.A. de C.V. v. Curry |
The issue on appeal was whether Texas' prohibition of horsemeat for human consumption was preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) or was in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The court held that the statute was not preempted or in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
|
|
Endangered Species Act Listing |
|
|
Endangered Species Act Split-Listing Chart for Chimpanzees |
|
|
Fabrikant v. French |
Plaintiff Jody Fabrikant, who had recently placed an advertisement for the adoption of puppies, was in possession of fifteen animals, including fourteen dogs and one cat. Reacting to several complaints regarding the animals’ treatment, defendants, the Ulster County SPCA and employees, executed a search warrant resulting in Fabrikant's arrest and seizure of thirteen of her fifteen animals. Plaintiff subsequently asserted that her federal constitutional rights were violated during the course of her criminal prosecution for animal cruelty. With respect to all four federal claims, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment since the existence of probable cause (e.g., video recordings and photographs of the condition of the plaintiff’s home) insulated the defendants from liability for their decisions to seize Plaintiff's animals.
|
|
Fabrikant v. French |
After multiple negative reports came in about the living conditions of her animals, an animal rescue organization seized many of the plaintiff-appellant's dogs; she was then charged with five counts of animal cruelty, but was later acquitted at a state trial. Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellant and her state trial attorney filed a federal civil rights suit against the animal organization and others. After losing at the district level, on the first appeal, and on remand from the first appeal, the plaintiff-appellant appealed the case for a second time. On this appeal, the Second Circuit held that though the animal organization was a state actor, it had qualified immunity, which protected it from the plaintiff-appellant’s charges. Additionally, the court held that investigator’s had probable cause to seize the dogs, which also defeated the plaintiff-appellant’s charges. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed, but for different reasons.
|
|
Fabrizius v. Dep't of Agric. |
The Tenth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Jason Fabrizius and Fabrizius Livestock LLC, affirming a $210,000 civil penalty imposed by the USDA for violations of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 8301-8322) and implementing regulations (9 C.F.R. §§ 71.3, 86.5), as well as the Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. § 1901 note) and its regulations (9 C.F.R. §§ 88.4, 88.6). The case involved Fabrizius's interstate sales of horses, many destined for slaughter, without required health documentation. The violations included: (1) transporting 14 horses without owner-shipper certificates required by CTESA to ensure humane transport conditions; (2) selling 50 horses across state lines without Interstate Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (ICVIs) mandated by AHPA regulations for disease tracking; and (3) selling an EIA-positive horse that triggered a multi-state disease investigation, with 67 exposed horses remaining untraceable. The court upheld the USDA’s determination that Fabrizius Livestock qualified as a "person responsible" under 9 C.F.R. § 86.5(a), rejecting constitutional vagueness and due process challenges, as the regulatory language provided fair notice and encompassed sellers who knowingly facilitated interstate movement. The court also found the penalty neither arbitrary nor excessive under the Eighth Amendment, deferring to the agency’s consideration of statutory factors, including the violations’ gravity, Fabrizius’s experience in the industry, and the potential economic and health risks posed by the undocumented horse movements. The decision reinforces broad agency discretion in enforcing animal health regulations and affirms that civil penalties need not be mathematically precise so long as they are proportionate to the violations and supported by reasoned analysis.
|
