Federal

Share |

In the Matters of: Kyle C. Mueller, et al

Summary: <p> The question in this case was whether respondents, members of a marine mammal conservation group, violated the MMPA by interfering with the authorized capture of six dolphins.&nbsp; As result of&nbsp;this case, which was a civil penalty proceeding, only one of the respondents was found guilty of taking under the MMPA.&nbsp;The court found that the respondent's actions, although taken with noble intentions, endangered the lives of the dolphins, was improper, and dangerous.&nbsp; He was assessed a fine in the amount of $2,000. </p>

The question in this case was whether respondents, members of a marine mammal conservation group, violated the MMPA by interfering with the authorized capture of six dolphins.  As result of this case, which was a civil penalty proceeding, only one of the respondents was found guilty of taking under the MMPA. The court found that the respondent's actions, although taken with noble intentions, endangered the lives of the dolphins, was improper, and dangerous.  He was assessed a fine in the amount of $2,000.

U.S. v. Mackie

Summary: <p> Defendants challenge their eagle convictions under the MBTA, alleging that they should have been charged under the more specific BGEPA.&nbsp; Court holds the government may elect to proceed under either statute; nothing in the language or legislative history proscribes prosecution under the more general MBTA.&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>

Defendants challenge their eagle convictions under the MBTA, alleging that they should have been charged under the more specific BGEPA.  Court holds the government may elect to proceed under either statute; nothing in the language or legislative history proscribes prosecution under the more general MBTA.  For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association v. Baldridge

Summary: <p> Petitioners, Japanese fishing federation, fisherman's&nbsp;association, and environmental group,&nbsp;filed&nbsp;motions for a preliminary injunction against respondent Secretary of Commerce who entered a final decision that approved the&nbsp;federation for an incidental take permit under the MMPA and adopted regulations that authorized the taking of Dall's porpoise within the fishery conservation zone. </p>

Petitioners, Japanese fishing federation, fisherman's association, and environmental group, filed motions for a preliminary injunction against respondent Secretary of Commerce who entered a final decision that approved the federation for an incidental take permit under the MMPA and adopted regulations that authorized the taking of Dall's porpoise within the fishery conservation zone.

U.S. v. Thirty-Eight Golden Eagles

Summary: <p> Defendant appeals a civil forfeiture action under the BGEPA.&nbsp; In applying the three-part <u> Callahan </u> test to defendant's free exercise claim, the court holds that while defendant's religious exercise is substantially burdened, the government has a compelling interest in protecting a rare species and effectuates this interest in the least restrictive means.&nbsp; The court declines to consider defendant's free exercise challenge to the permit process, as defendant failed to apply for a permit and thus lacks standing.&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>

Defendant appeals a civil forfeiture action under the BGEPA.  In applying the three-part Callahan test to defendant's free exercise claim, the court holds that while defendant's religious exercise is substantially burdened, the government has a compelling interest in protecting a rare species and effectuates this interest in the least restrictive means.  The court declines to consider defendant's free exercise challenge to the permit process, as defendant failed to apply for a permit and thus lacks standing.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Resources

Summary: <p> The action alleged that defendants, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and chairman, violated the Endangered Species Act by maintaining feral sheep and goats in an endangered bird's critical habitat. Defendant had maintained feral sheep and goats within the critical habitat of the endangered palila bird. The practice degraded the bird's habitat. The court upheld summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that maintenance of the herd constituted a taking under the Act. </p>

The action alleged that defendants, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and chairman, violated the Endangered Species Act by maintaining feral sheep and goats in an endangered bird's critical habitat. Defendant had maintained feral sheep and goats within the critical habitat of the endangered palila bird. The practice degraded the bird's habitat. The court upheld summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that maintenance of the herd constituted a taking under the Act.

U.S. v. Abeyta

Summary: <p> Defendant, an Indian who resided on a reservation charged with the possession of golden eagle parts under the BGEPA, challenged the indictment as a violation of treaty rights and an unconstitutional burden on his exercise of religion.&nbsp; In an&nbsp;unusual decision, the court found that the BGEPA&nbsp;placed an unconstitutional burden on defendant's exercise of religion, where the golden eagle was not threatened in New Mexico and&nbsp;permits to kill depredating eagles had previously been issued.&nbsp; The court also&nbsp;held that the&nbsp;treaty at issue granted special religious accommodations to the tribe, thereby preserving a treaty right to harvest eagles for religious needs.&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>

Defendant, an Indian who resided on a reservation charged with the possession of golden eagle parts under the BGEPA, challenged the indictment as a violation of treaty rights and an unconstitutional burden on his exercise of religion.  In an unusual decision, the court found that the BGEPA placed an unconstitutional burden on defendant's exercise of religion, where the golden eagle was not threatened in New Mexico and permits to kill depredating eagles had previously been issued.  The court also held that the treaty at issue granted special religious accommodations to the tribe, thereby preserving a treaty right to harvest eagles for religious needs.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Hopson v. Kreps

Summary: <p> Action brought on behalf of Alaskan Eskimos which challenged the validity of the Department of Commerce regulations adopted pursuant to IWC Act. Plaintiffs claim is the the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the Convention when it eliminated the native subsistence exemption for Alaskan Eskimos. The Court reverses and remands the districts courts dismissal of the action. </p>

Action brought on behalf of Alaskan Eskimos which challenged the validity of the Department of Commerce regulations adopted pursuant to IWC Act. Plaintiffs claim is the the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the Convention when it eliminated the native subsistence exemption for Alaskan Eskimos. The Court reverses and remands the districts courts dismissal of the action.

U.S. v. Fryberg

Summary: <p> The court finds that the legislative history and surrounding circumstances of the BGEPA evinces a congressional intent to restrict treaty-based rights to hunt eagles.&nbsp; The court aligns itself with Judge Lay's dissent in <u> U.S. v. White </u> to hold that the BGEPA abrogated Indian hunting rights related to eagles.&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 court finds that the legislative history and surrounding circumstances of the BGEPA evinces a congressional intent to restrict treaty-based rights to hunt eagles.  The court aligns itself with Judge Lay's dissent in U.S. v. White to hold that the BGEPA abrogated Indian hunting rights related to eagles.  For further discussion on the abrogation of Indian treaty rights under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Strong v. United States

Summary: <p> The appeal in this case does not contest the denial of a permit to conduct dolphin feedings cruises. The position of the plaintiffs-appellees is that the Secretary of Commerce has no authority to consider feeding to be a form of harassment or to regulate it. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs-appellees and found it clearly reasonable to restrict or prohibit the feeding of dolphins as a potential hazard to them. </p>

The appeal in this case does not contest the denial of a permit to conduct dolphin feedings cruises. The position of the plaintiffs-appellees is that the Secretary of Commerce has no authority to consider feeding to be a form of harassment or to regulate it. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs-appellees and found it clearly reasonable to restrict or prohibit the feeding of dolphins as a potential hazard to them.

U.S. v. St. Pierre

Summary: <p> Defendant challenged his&nbsp;felony indictment under the MBTA after selling an "invitation stick" that contained golden eagle feathers.&nbsp; The court held that the act encompasses migratory birds parts, not just whole birds so the indictment would stand.&nbsp; However, in a unique decision it held that the imposition of a felony conviction would violate due process where the statute does not specify any degree of intent.&nbsp; As a result, the court said it would sentence defendant under the misdemeanor provision of the statute if convicted.&nbsp; For further discussion on the intersection of the intent component of the MBTA with the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#mbta"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act </a> . </p>

Defendant challenged his felony indictment under the MBTA after selling an "invitation stick" that contained golden eagle feathers.  The court held that the act encompasses migratory birds parts, not just whole birds so the indictment would stand.  However, in a unique decision it held that the imposition of a felony conviction would violate due process where the statute does not specify any degree of intent.  As a result, the court said it would sentence defendant under the misdemeanor provision of the statute if convicted.  For further discussion on the intersection of the intent component of the MBTA with the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Share |