|
Dias v. City and County of Denver |
The Tenth Circuit took up a challenge to Denver's breed-specific ban against pitbull dogs. The plaintiffs, former residents of Denver, contended the ban is unconstitutionally vague on its face and deprives them of substantive due process. The district court dismissed both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) before plaintiffs presented evidence to support their claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by prematurely dismissing the case at the 12(b)(6) stage. The Tenth Circuit agreed in part, finding that while the plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective relief for either claim because they have not shown a credible threat of future prosecution, taking the factual allegations in the complaint as true the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the pit bull ban is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
|
|
Diamond v. Chakrabarty |
In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States asserts that patent protection may exist for "anything under the sun," so long as it is created by man. This has permitted genetically engineered animals to be patentable subject matter in the United States. For more information on patent protection in the United States, see the Patent Act.
|
|
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. |
|
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 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 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 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 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. |
|
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.
|
|
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. |
