United States

Allen v. Municipality of Anchorage

Summary: <p> Krystal R. Allen pleaded no contest to two counts of cruelty to animals after animal control officers came to her home and found 180 to 200 cats, 3 dogs, 13 birds, and 3 chickens in deplorable conditions. She was sentenced to a 30-day jail term and was placed on probation for 10 years. One of the conditions of Allen's probation prohibits her from possessing any animals other than her son's dog. In first deciding that its jurisdictional reach extends to claims not just based on the term of imprisonment, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by restricting Allen's possession of animals during the term of her probation. <span> &nbsp; </span> </p>

Krystal R. Allen pleaded no contest to two counts of cruelty to animals after animal control officers came to her home and found 180 to 200 cats, 3 dogs, 13 birds, and 3 chickens in deplorable conditions. She was sentenced to a 30-day jail term and was placed on probation for 10 years. One of the conditions of Allen's probation prohibits her from possessing any animals other than her son's dog. In first deciding that its jurisdictional reach extends to claims not just based on the term of imprisonment, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by restricting Allen's possession of animals during the term of her probation.  

Fitch v. Eiseman

Summary: <span> The trial court approved a divorcing couple&rsquo;s agreement for dogs to be with their children (and so travel to the husband's and wife&rsquo;s houses as part of a shared custody agreement of their children).&nbsp; The&nbsp;wife did not abide by the agreement, so the&nbsp;Supreme Court remanded back to the trial court&nbsp;to determine sole ownership of the dog. </span>

The trial court approved a divorcing couple’s agreement for dogs to be with their children (and so travel to the husband's and wife’s houses as part of a shared custody agreement of their children).  The wife did not abide by the agreement, so the Supreme Court remanded back to the trial court to determine sole ownership of the dog.

U.S. v. Gonzales

Summary: <p> Court held that defendant has standing to raise a facial&nbsp;challenge to the Indian eagle permit process where he declined to apply for a permit based on the intrusiveness of the questions.&nbsp; Defendant is a member of a highly secretive religious sect of his tribe.&nbsp; In the RFRA analysis, the court held that the permit application was not the least restrictive means of implementing the government's compelling interest where the permit required intrusive information about religious practices.&nbsp; For further discussion on Native American religious challenges to the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#religious"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act </a> . </p>

Court held that defendant has standing to raise a facial challenge to the Indian eagle permit process where he declined to apply for a permit based on the intrusiveness of the questions.  Defendant is a member of a highly secretive religious sect of his tribe.  In the RFRA analysis, the court held that the permit application was not the least restrictive means of implementing the government's compelling interest where the permit required intrusive information about religious practices.  For further discussion on Native American religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Rupert v. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Summary: <p> Appellant was the pastor of an all-race Native American church that required the use of eagle feathers during certain worship who challenged the BGEPA&nbsp;after being denied a permit to obtain eagle feathers because he was not a member of a recognized Indian tribe.&nbsp; Under an equal protection analysis, the court found the limitation on the use of eagle parts to Native Americans is rationally related to the government's interest in preserving the eagle population as well as the special religious and cultural interests of Native Americans.&nbsp; For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by non-Native Americans, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#nonindian"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Appellant was the pastor of an all-race Native American church that required the use of eagle feathers during certain worship who challenged the BGEPA after being denied a permit to obtain eagle feathers because he was not a member of a recognized Indian tribe.  Under an equal protection analysis, the court found the limitation on the use of eagle parts to Native Americans is rationally related to the government's interest in preserving the eagle population as well as the special religious and cultural interests of Native Americans.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by non-Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Brower v. Daley

Summary: <p> Based on the Secretary of Commerce&rsquo;s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe standard, David Brower, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations challenged the finding as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law.&nbsp; The District Court for the Northern District of California found that the Secretary&rsquo;s Initial Finding was not in accordance with the law and was an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to properly consider these studies. </p>

Based on the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe standard, David Brower, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations challenged the finding as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law.  The District Court for the Northern District of California found that the Secretary’s Initial Finding was not in accordance with the law and was an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to properly consider these studies.

U.S. v. Gregory (Unpublished Opinion)

Summary: <p> Defendant challenged the search of his residence in a drug raid&nbsp;in which his dog was shot.&nbsp; The court held that&nbsp;the shooting of Gregory's dog was done excusably by an officer who reacted quickly in a potentially dangerous situation to a perceived attack by an animal reasonably believed to be an attack dog. The shooting of the dog did not render the search unreasonable. </p>

Defendant challenged the search of his residence in a drug raid in which his dog was shot.  The court held that the shooting of Gregory's dog was done excusably by an officer who reacted quickly in a potentially dangerous situation to a perceived attack by an animal reasonably believed to be an attack dog. The shooting of the dog did not render the search unreasonable.

U.S. v. Lundquist

Summary: <p> Defendant, a non-Native American practitioner of Native American religion, challenged his conviction as a&nbsp;religious exercise violation where there was no evidence that defendant&nbsp;was trafficking in eagle parts.&nbsp; Employing a&nbsp;RFRA analysis, the court found that while the limitation under the BGEPA to members of federally-recognized Indian tribes did substantially burden defendant's exercise of religion, the government asserted a compelling interest in protecting a rare species and maintaining Indian culture that was administered through the least restrictive means (e.g., the permit process).&nbsp; For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by non-Native Americans, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#nonindian"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act </a> . </p>

Defendant, a non-Native American practitioner of Native American religion, challenged his conviction as a religious exercise violation where there was no evidence that defendant was trafficking in eagle parts.  Employing a RFRA analysis, the court found that while the limitation under the BGEPA to members of federally-recognized Indian tribes did substantially burden defendant's exercise of religion, the government asserted a compelling interest in protecting a rare species and maintaining Indian culture that was administered through the least restrictive means (e.g., the permit process).  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by non-Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

U.S. v. Jim

Summary: <p> Court considered defendant's claim based on newly enacted RFRA.&nbsp; Court finds defendant's asserted need to kill 12 eagles a year would decimate eagle population in Oregon.&nbsp; While not perfect, court finds the eagle permit system the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling need of protecting eagles.&nbsp; For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#religious"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Court considered defendant's claim based on newly enacted RFRA.  Court finds defendant's asserted need to kill 12 eagles a year would decimate eagle population in Oregon.  While not perfect, court finds the eagle permit system the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling need of protecting eagles.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Earth Island Institute v. Brown

Summary: <p> Plaintiffs sought to prevent the Secretary of Commerce from allowing the American Tunaboat Association ("ATA") to continue killing northeastern offshore spotted dolphins that had been listed as depleted.&nbsp; Defendants argued that such killings were permissible under the ATA's permit, and that the MMPA provisions relied on by the plaintiffs were irrelevant to the dispute.&nbsp; The court concluded that Congress did not intend to allow the continued taking of dolphin species or stock, once the Secretary had determined that their population level was depleted.&nbsp; </p>

Plaintiffs sought to prevent the Secretary of Commerce from allowing the American Tunaboat Association ("ATA") to continue killing northeastern offshore spotted dolphins that had been listed as depleted.  Defendants argued that such killings were permissible under the ATA's permit, and that the MMPA provisions relied on by the plaintiffs were irrelevant to the dispute.  The court concluded that Congress did not intend to allow the continued taking of dolphin species or stock, once the Secretary had determined that their population level was depleted. 

Kokechik Fishermen's Association v. Secretary of Commerce

Summary: <p> The Secretary of Commerce issued a regulation authorizing appellant salmon federation to take a fixed number of porpoise in connection to commercial fishing for salmon.&nbsp; Appellee commercial fishermen opposed the permit.&nbsp; The federation sought review of a judgment which preliminarily enjoined the Secretary from issuing the permit. </p>

The Secretary of Commerce issued a regulation authorizing appellant salmon federation to take a fixed number of porpoise in connection to commercial fishing for salmon.  Appellee commercial fishermen opposed the permit.  The federation sought review of a judgment which preliminarily enjoined the Secretary from issuing the permit.