Federal (U.S.)
Doris Day Animal League, et al. v. Veneman, USDA, et al.
315 F.3d 297
US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 2003
FACTS: The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires certain animal “dealers” to be licensed and to submit to inspections. The Act, which is administered by the USDA, exempts “retails pet stores” from these requirements. The Secretary of Agriculture defines “retail pet store” as “any outlet where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail for use as pets: dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and coldblooded species.” Thus, breeders who sell dogs from their residences are exempt from licensing and inspections proscribed by the AWA. The Doris Day Animal League filed a rulemaking petition with the Agriculture Department, urging a change in the Secretary of Agriculture’s regulatory definition of “retail pet store” so that residential operations would not be exempted. When the Secretary announced that he would retain the definition, the Doris Day Animal League and other organizations and individuals concerned about the mistreatment of dogs brought an action for judicial review. The district court held the USDA’s regulation of “retail pet stores” invalid because the definition did not include one who sells dogs for use as pets for his residence. Defendants appealed.
ISSUES: What did Congress intend “retail pet store” to mean; whether the USDA’s interpretation of “retail pet store” was reasonable.
HOLDINGS:
1) The legislative history reveals that the emphasis of the Animal Welfare Act was on regulation of wholesale, not retail, sellers of animals.
2) The definition of “dealer” has 2 exceptions: 1) retail pet store, 2) any person who does not sell, or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild animal, dog, or cat, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals during any calendar year.
3) The Secretary’s decision and policy statement declining to modify its regulatory definition of “retail pet store” is supported with reasoning that is persuasive and faithful to the Act’s purpose of protecting animal welfare. The regulation is a permissible construction of the statutory term “retail pet store.”