Federal

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>

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>

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>

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>

Summary: <p> Female employees of the Department of Social Services and the Board of Education of the City of New York brought an action challenging the policies of those bodies in requiring pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absence before those leaves were required for medical reasons.&nbsp; The decision of this case addresses issues of immunity. </p>

Summary: <p> At issue in this case are the statutory limitations on the authority&nbsp;of the Secretary of Commerce to adopt regulations, pursuant to the&nbsp;MMPA, that provide for the issuance of permits for&nbsp;the "taking" of&nbsp;dolphins incidental to commercial fishing activities. </p>

Summary: <p> Defendant finds a decaying eagle carcass on a wildlife preserve.&nbsp; He then removes the legs and talons of the eagle to bring to a Boy Scout function.&nbsp; The court&nbsp;reverses his conviction (and $1.00 fine) finding that he did not possess the requisite intent.&nbsp; The court determines that a conviction under the BGEPA demands a specific intent.&nbsp; For further discussion on intent under the BGEPA see&nbsp; <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Summary: <p> Advocacy groups challenged governments approval of quota for whale hunting by the Makah Indian Tribe.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals held that in granting the quota, the government violated the NEPA by failing to prepare an impact statement, and, that the MMPA applied to the tribe's whale hunt.&nbsp; REVERSED. </p>

Summary: <p> Motion for leave to amend &sect; 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun. </p>

Summary: <p> Environmental groups challenged the NMFS's use of data in its classification of the Hawaii longline fishery as a "category III" fishery.&nbsp; Held:&nbsp; the NMFS has discretion to consider reliability of only available scientific data in classifying fishery. </p>