United States

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Summary: <p> Respondents filed suit challenging the new regulation under the ESA that limited the jurisdiction to the U.S. and the high seas.&nbsp; While the case, was remanded the central issue to this case was whether respondents had standing to challenge the ruling. </p>

Respondents filed suit challenging the new regulation under the ESA that limited the jurisdiction to the U.S. and the high seas.  While the case, was remanded the central issue to this case was whether respondents had standing to challenge the ruling.

City of Canton v. Harris

Summary: <p> Detainee brought civil rights action against city, alleging violation of her right to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody. The Supreme Court held that inadequacy of police training may serve as basis for &sect; 1983 municipal liability only where failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come into contact. </p>

Detainee brought civil rights action against city, alleging violation of her right to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody. The Supreme Court held that inadequacy of police training may serve as basis for § 1983 municipal liability only where failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come into contact.

U.S. v. Dion

Summary: <p> The legislative history surrounding the passage of the BGEPA as well as the&nbsp;plain language of the Act evinces an intent by Congress to abrogate the rights of Indians to take eagles except as otherwise provided by statute.&nbsp; Defendant, a member and resident of the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Reservation, was charged with violations of the BGEPA and ESA after shooting several eagles on the reservation and selling eagle parts.&nbsp; The Court held that any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the need to preserve the species.&nbsp; For further discussion on the abrogation of Indian treaty rights under the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#abrogation"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

The legislative history surrounding the passage of the BGEPA as well as the plain language of the Act evinces an intent by Congress to abrogate the rights of Indians to take eagles except as otherwise provided by statute.  Defendant, a member and resident of the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Reservation, was charged with violations of the BGEPA and ESA after shooting several eagles on the reservation and selling eagle parts.  The Court held that any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the need to preserve the species.  For further discussion on the abrogation of Indian treaty rights under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

U.S. v. Jacobsen

Summary: <p> Defendants were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota of possession of an illegal substance with intent to distribute, and they appealed.&nbsp;This case discussed searches and seizures and the Fourth Amendment. </p>

Defendants were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota of possession of an illegal substance with intent to distribute, and they appealed. This case discussed searches and seizures and the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc.

Summary: <p> Defendant&nbsp;on appeal contends that&nbsp;its conduct of electrocuting migratory birds does not fall within the ambit of either the MBTA or the BGEPA because each statute&nbsp;is directed at the more traditional "physical" takings of migratory birds through hunting and poaching.&nbsp; The court disagrees, finding the plain language of the statute and legislative history demonstrate an intent to include electrocutions.&nbsp; The court further delineates the differences in intent under each statute, finding that while the MBTA is a strict liability crime, the BGEPA is not.&nbsp; For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#mbta"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Defendant on appeal contends that its conduct of electrocuting migratory birds does not fall within the ambit of either the MBTA or the BGEPA because each statute is directed at the more traditional "physical" takings of migratory birds through hunting and poaching.  The court disagrees, finding the plain language of the statute and legislative history demonstrate an intent to include electrocutions.  The court further delineates the differences in intent under each statute, finding that while the MBTA is a strict liability crime, the BGEPA is not.  For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

Summary: <p> Plaintiff brought suit for damages based on his allegedly unlawful discharge from employment in Department of Air Force.&nbsp; U.S. Supreme Court reviewed immunity issues and held that while presidential aides are entitled to qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded only where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. </p>

Plaintiff brought suit for damages based on his allegedly unlawful discharge from employment in Department of Air Force.  U.S. Supreme Court reviewed immunity issues and held that while presidential aides are entitled to qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded only where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Andrus v. Allard

Summary: <p> The Court holds that the narrow exception in the BGEPA for "possession and transportation" of pre-existing eagles and eagle artifacts does not extend to sale of the those lawfully obtained artifacts.&nbsp; The legislative history and plain language of the statute is clear on Congress' intent to prohibit any commerce in eagles.&nbsp; This prohibition on commerce in eagle artifacts does not constitute an unconstitutional taking because the ability to sell the property is but one strand in the owner's bundle of property rights.&nbsp; The denial of one property right does not automatically equate a taking.&nbsp; For further discussion on the prohibition in commerce of pre-existing eagle artifacts, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#preexisting"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

The Court holds that the narrow exception in the BGEPA for "possession and transportation" of pre-existing eagles and eagle artifacts does not extend to sale of the those lawfully obtained artifacts.  The legislative history and plain language of the statute is clear on Congress' intent to prohibit any commerce in eagles.  This prohibition on commerce in eagle artifacts does not constitute an unconstitutional taking because the ability to sell the property is but one strand in the owner's bundle of property rights.  The denial of one property right does not automatically equate a taking.  For further discussion on the prohibition in commerce of pre-existing eagle artifacts, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

U.S. v. Corbin Farm Service

Summary: <p> As related to the BGEPA, the opinion distinguishes the degree of intent under the MBTA from that of the BGEPA.&nbsp; It also holds that both statutes were designed to apply to activities outside of traditional scope of hunting and poaching (in this case poisoning of birds).&nbsp; For further discussion on activities such as poisoning and electrocution prohibited under the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#electrocution"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

As related to the BGEPA, the opinion distinguishes the degree of intent under the MBTA from that of the BGEPA.  It also holds that both statutes were designed to apply to activities outside of traditional scope of hunting and poaching (in this case poisoning of birds).  For further discussion on activities such as poisoning and electrocution prohibited under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.