Animal Welfare Act

Summary: Relevant legal documents concerning investigation into the cruel treatment of animals at the Malaria Research Center in Cali, Colombia.

Summary: First, this article analyzes the dichotomy between legitimate, accredited zoological institutions, and roadside zoos. Understanding the difference between these types of facilities is critical to understanding how changes in federal and state law could eliminate a significant number of roadside zoos, while permitting accredited zoos to survive under firm guidelines. Second, this article will examine the current requirements of the AWA, to show how expansion in scope and specificity are critical. Specifically, this section will address the need for the AWA to extend to all captive animals, and to include specifies specific welfare provisions as well as a citizen suit provision. Third, this article will discuss the benefits of extending the Michigan anti-cruelty statute to zoos. This includes an analysis of the difference between zoos and other categories exempt from the state statute. Finally, this article will consider the effects of the proposed statute changes and provide suggestions for rehoming animals inevitably displaced by the changes in state and federal law.

Summary: These AWA regulations comprise Subpart G for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds.

Summary: In 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“ASPCA”) sued Defendants-Appellees the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) alleging that APHIS followed a "policy or practice" of violating FOIA for failing to comply with requests for records related to the agency response to maintenance of animal welfare standards and licensing of animal dealers/exhibitors. This suit was prompted by APHIS' 2017 decommissioning of two public databases that allow users (including the ASPCA) to access records on commercial breeding facilities including inspection reports and photographs. APHIS contends that there was not a policy or practice that violated FOIA because it was corrected as the result of an intervening act of Congress, specifically, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020. In April of 2020, APHIS moved for summary judgment on the pleadings arguing that ASPCA failed to state a policy or practice claim related to the decommissioned databases and that it makes every effort to respond to FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment on the pleadings, finding that while the decommissioning of the databases did indeed impair the ability of the ASPCA to receive prompt FOIA requests, ASPCA did not establish that the court must intervene to correct such a policy or practice and Congress already acted to correct the breakdown through the appropriations bill. On ASPCA's timely appeal here, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 reversed the records access problems. While the ASPCA contended that there were certain records like photographs that were removed from the database, there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that such record requests would not be processed in the future. In essence, this court agreed that the intervening act of Congress by the change in law corrected the action. Thus, a broad order by the court mandating changes to the FOIA process would amount to an unlawful advisory opinion because there is no policy or practice currently occurring by APHIS. The district court's judgment was affirmed.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed suit to enjoin the enforcement and challenge the constitutionality of Section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“Section 12616”), which bans the “sponsor[ship]” and “exhibit[ion]” of cockfighting matches in Puerto Rico. The district court upheld Section 12616 as a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. On appeal here, the court first determined whether the plaintiffs had sufficient standing to challenge the law. It concluded that plaintiff Ángel Manuel Ortiz-Díaz, the owner of two cockfighting venues and a breeder and owner of more than 200 gamecocks, has standing to challenge Section 12616. Ortiz faces a credible threat of prosecution under Section 12616 because he regularly sponsors and exhibits cockfighting matches. Finding standing, the court considered plaintiffs' claim that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting Section 12616. The court found that cockfighting is an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce and Congress passing Section 12616 was a legitimate exercise of Commerce Clause power. Finally, plaintiffs contend that Section 12616 infringes on their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. In rejecting this argument, the court held that plaintiffs failed to identify the necessary "expressive element" in cockfighting activities that would render it subject to First Amendment protections and, even if they made such a showing, Section 12616 is a permissible restraint on such speech. Finally, nothing in Section 12616 infringes on the associational right to assemble since it does not prevent individuals from gathering to express their views on cockfighting. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Summary: Scotland's 2020 legislation increased maximum available penalties for the most serious animal welfare offences, involving domesticated or wild animals, up to 5 years imprisonment and unlimited fines. Serious crimes include animal fighting and causing unnecessary suffering. The Act also prevents those who attack service animals in the course of their duties from relying on self-defence. Further, the Act requires the courts to consider whether disqualification orders are necessary to protect animal welfare, and to provide its reasons for reaching its decision in every case that reaches court.

Summary: Petitioners seek review of a decision and order of the USDA/APHIS determining that they violated various provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) and its implementing regulations, imposing civil penalties, and revoking the exhibitor license granted to Terranova Enterprises, Inc. Petitioners were licensees who provide wild animals like tigers and monkeys for movies, circuses, and other entertainment. In 2015 and 2016, APHIS filed complaints against petitioners that they willfully violated multiple provisions of the AWA and knowingly violated a cease and desist order issued in 2011 to avoid future violations of the AWA. After consolidating the complaints, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that petitioners willfully committed four violations, so the ALJ issued a cease and desist order, suspended petitioners' license for 30 days, and assessed a $10,000 penalty and an $11,550 civil penalty for failing to obey the prior cease and desist order. On appeal by both parties to the Judicial Officer of the USDA, petitioners' exhibitor license was revoked and the penalties were increased to $35,000 and $14,850, respectively. On appeal here to the Fifth Circuit, petitioners claim that the determinations of the Judicial Officer were not supported by substantial evidence and that she abused her discretion in revoking their exhibitor license. This court found there was sufficient evidence to support the violations, including failing to allow APHIS officials to conduct compliance investigations and inspections, faulty tiger enclosures, insufficient distance/barriers between tigers and the public, failure to make an environmental enrichment plan, and failings involving tiger enclosure and protection from inclement weather, among other things. With regard to petitioners' claim that the Judicial Officer abused her discretion in revoking the exhibitor license, this court court found that petitioners committed more than one willful violation of the AWA so revocation was not unwarranted or without justification. The court concluded that the USDA Secretary’s order was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, and that it was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review.

Summary: This overview describes federal, state, and private regulation of zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries. It highlights the ways in which these regulatory mechanisms fail to adequately protect captive wildlife, whether they be held at larger, accreditor facilities or small, roadside zoos. It also highlights meaningful distinctions separating credible zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries from problematic roadside zoos through compliance with government standards or those set through voluntary, private accreditation.

Summary: This brief summary explores laws regulating zoos and other animal exhibitions. Zoos, aquariums, and animal sanctuaries are subject to federal, state, and local laws. On the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act and Endangered Species Act protect captive animals at these facilities. However, these statutes only provide minimal welfare requirements and are limited in terms of scope and enforcement. Beyond these federal laws, there are laws that protect specific species and states have adopted their own laws further regulating possession and exhibition of wild animals. In addition to increased regulation, there have been a number of organizations offering accreditation for exhibiting facilities, holding these facilities to a higher standard of animal welfare than the minimum requirements set out by federal laws like the Animal Welfare Act.