Federal

Summary: <p> The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision that the Federal Meat Inspection Act focuses on the processes used by a manufacturer and not the product itself, and that the presence of Salmonella bacteria in the meat does not necessarily make a product "adulterated" because the act of the cooking meat normally destroys the bacteria. </p>

Summary: <p> The court reversed the district court's judgment of convictions against defendants for the illegal importation and the intent to sell iguanas in the United States because of prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that the prosecutor wasted valuable money in pursuing irrelevant testimony, and improperly questioned defendants and their witnesses after repeated warnings from the district court judge. </p>

Summary: <p> 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. &nbsp;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. <span> &nbsp;&nbsp; </span> </p>

Summary: Plaintiffs Access Now, Inc. and Pamela Kitchens, acting as parent and legal guardian on behalf of her minor daughter Tiffany&nbsp;brought this action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against defendant Town of Jasper, Tennessee under the ADA&nbsp;after the town denied her request to keep a keep miniature horse as service animal at her residence. The town's ordinance at issue provided that no person shall keep an enumerated animal within 1000 feet of any residence without a permit from the health officer.&nbsp;The Jasper Municipal Court held a hearing and determined that the keeping of the horse was in violation of the code and ordered it removed from the property. On appeal, this Court found that while the plaintiffs contended that the horse helped Tiffany in standing, walking, and maintaining her balance, Tiffany does not have a disability as defined by the ADA and does not have a genuine need to use the horse as a service animal. Further, the Court found that the horse was not a service animal within the meaning&nbsp;of 28 C.F.R. &sect; 36.104&nbsp;because the animal was not used in the capacity of a service animal and instead was a companion or pet to Tiffany. The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary: <p> <span> An animal rights foundation sought to have the definition of &ldquo;animal&rdquo; amended, so that birds, mice and rats used for research would not be excluded. <span> &nbsp; </span> USDA agreed to consider the animal rights foundation petition to have the definition amended, and agreed to do so in reasonable amount of time. <span> &nbsp; </span> The National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), a biomedical research group that used birds, mice and rats in its research, attempted to intervene and prevent USDA from considering the petition. <span> &nbsp; </span> However, NABR was prohibited from doing so because there was no showing that preventing intervention would result in its interests not being violated. </span> </p>

Summary: <p> Defendants Goodfriend and Benney, commercial fishermen licensed pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), are charged with catching and failing to return substantial quantities of eel and walleye from Lake Ontario and New York waters in violation of&nbsp; New York law that prohibits commerce in these fish because of health and conservation concerns.&nbsp; Aware of the ban prohibiting the sale of eel and walleye taken from these waters, Goodfriend and Benney subsequently sold the eel and walleye to a host of fish wholesalers and retailers, located within and outside New York.&nbsp; Defendant truck driver's alleged filing of false Canadian customs forms relating to eel and walleye he was transporting from the U.S. to his Canadian employer were violations of the Lacey Act, regardless of whether these acts violated Canadian law. </p>

Summary: <p> In the matter of <u> Pedersen v. Benson </u> , an importer had a permit to import five giraffes from Kenya, three of which were sold and released to public zoos after the requisite quarantine period.&nbsp; The other two were bought by &lsquo;Africa USA,&rsquo; but not released.&nbsp; One of them had a heart attack and died.&nbsp; Plaintiff&rsquo;s filed suit to have the other one they purchased released.&nbsp; The permits, issued by APHIS, were issued under the further understanding that all the giraffes would be consigned to an approved zoological park (Africa USA is a privately-owned zoo).&nbsp; The Court found no basis to uphold the government&rsquo;s claim that a government officer may impose an ad hoc system of licensure upon any citizen, or upon any one group, i.e. private zoos, as opposed to another.&nbsp; Here, the importation was specifically permitted for all five animals, and any one animal was just as much a potential carrier of hoof and mouth disease as this particular giraffe.&nbsp; Therefore, this matter was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <p> This was a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the bill is that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.&nbsp; While the court recognized the states' province to act in traditional matters of fish and game, the migratory nature of wild birds makes them the proper subject of treaty.&nbsp; As noted by the Court, "[t]he subject matter is only transitorily within the State and has no permanent habitat therein."&nbsp; The Court found the treaty was a proper exercise of constitutional authority where a national interest was implicated (i.e., "the protectors of our forests and our crops")&nbsp;and could only be&nbsp;protected by national&nbsp;action in concert with another power. </p>

Summary: <p> Defendant first argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the government failed to plead and prove two essential jurisdictional elements for a 16 U.S.C. &sect; 3372(a)(1) violation--namely, that Mr. Gardner was not an Indian and that the crime affected interstate commerce.&nbsp;&nbsp;The court found the non- Indian status of the defendant is not an essential element of jurisdiction for a 16 U.S.C. &sect; 3372 violation.&nbsp; It is only necessary to plead and prove an interstate commerce nexus where &sect; 3372(a)(2) is implicated.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Court reverses because the jury instructions did not sufficiently instruct the jury as to how it should consider uncorroborated accomplice testimony. </p>

Summary: <p> Santillan was prosecuted under the Lacey Act for bringing ten baby parrots across the border from Tijuana. His appeal raises, among other issues, a significant question about the mens rea needed under the Lacey Act.&nbsp; The court held that the Lacey Act does not require knowledge of the particular law violated by the possession or predicate act,&nbsp;as long as the defendant knows of&nbsp;its unlawfulness. </p>