Horse Slaughter

Displaying 21 - 30 of 53
Titlesort descending Summary
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.  
Empacadora De Carnes De Fresnillo v. Tim Curry


Plaintiff seeks an injunction against state of Texas to stop the enforcement of a law prohibiting the slaughter of horses in Texas as the law is improper on a number of bases.
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. 
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.
FL - Horse Slaughter - 500.451. Horse meat; offenses This Florida makes it unlawful for any person to sell in the markets of this state horse meat for human consumption unless the horse meat is clearly stamped, marked, and described as horse meat for human consumption or to knowingly transport, distribute, sell, purchase, or possess horse meat for human consumption that is not clearly stamped, marked, and described as horse meat for human consumption or horse meat that is not acquired from a licensed slaughterhouse.
FL - Horse Slaughter - Chapter 828. Animals: Cruelty; Sales; Animal Enterprise Protection. Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed this amendment into law on May 17, 2010 making it a second-degree felony for any person to willfully and unlawfully, by any means whatsoever, kill, maim, mutilate, or cause great bodily harm or permanent breeding disability to any animal of the genus Equus (horse). Any person who commits a violation of this subsection shall be sentenced to a minimum mandatory fine of $3,500 and a minimum mandatory period of incarceration of 1 year.
Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack

Between 2006 and 2011, Congress prevented commercial equine slaughter by prohibiting the use of funds for inspection of equine slaughterhouses.  In 2012, Congress lifted the ban on funding and the Food Safety Inspection Service  (FSIS) , which is a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), issued grants of inspection to two commercial equine slaughter facilities: Valley Meat Company, LLC and Responsible Transportation, LLC. Plaintiffs, Front Range Equine Rescue, the Humane Society of the United States, and several other individuals and organizations (collectively, “Front Range”) sued officials of the USDA (“Federal Defendants”). Plaintiffs were seeking a declaration that the grants of inspection violated the National Environmental Policy Act and requested that the court set aside the grants of inspection.  The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico,  granted Front Range's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which prohibited the Federal Defendants from sending inspectors to the equine slaughterhouses  or providing equine inspection services to them. The district court also ordered Front Range to post injunction bonds for Valley Meat and for Responsible Transportation and denied Front Range's request for a permanent injunction. Front Range appealed but the appeal was dismissed as moot. However, Valley Meat and Responsible Transportation then filed a motion in the district court to recover the injunction bonds. The motion was denied. Valley Meat then appealed the denial of damages on the injunction bond.  The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth affirmed the district court and held that Valley Meat was not entitled to recover. The Appeals Court reasoned that even if Valley Meat suffered damages, it cannot recover against the bond unless it first showed wrongful enjoinment. Valley Meat failed to do so and therefore could not collect damages.
GA - Horse Meat - Article 4. Advertisement and Sale of Meat Generally. As stated in the legislative intent, the General Assembly declares that purchasers and consumers have a right to expect and demand honesty and fair practices in the sale of meat for human consumption. It is the purpose of this Code to ensure that honest, fair, and ethical practices are followed in the advertising and sale of meat for human consumption. With regard to horsemeat, the Code prohibits the slaughter a horse in this state for the purpose of selling or offering for sale for human consumption or for other than human consumption the horse meat derived from such slaughtered animal unless certain conditions are met. Further, no horse meat shall be sold or offered for sale in this state for human consumption unless at the place of sale there shall be posted in a conspicuous location a sign bearing the words "HORSE MEAT FOR SALE."
Haberman v. United States


The U.S. Claims Court upheld its jurisdiction over an action brought by individuals who had their Private Maintenance and Care Agreements (PMCA) revoked by the Bureau of Land Management and their adopted wild horses repossessed when the agency learned that the individuals intended to sell the horses to slaughter once they obtained full legal title to them under the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.  The court found that the PMCA agreement constituted a contract between the government and the adopter, and thus that the Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Though the court noted that individual adopters would have to overcome the suggestion that they violated the terms of the PMCA by intending to sell the horses to slaughter.

  
Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

Pages