Federal (U.S.)
204 F.3d 229
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 2000
FACTS: The American Legal Defense Fund, an animal welfare organization, and individual plaintiffs, brought suit against the United States Department of Agriculture challenging regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) that purport to set “minimum requirements for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates” kept by exhibitors and researchers. Plaintiffs argued that the regulations did not set standards and that the USDA impermissibly delegated their legal responsibility. The District Court ruled for plaintiffs finding that the regulations did not set standards and the USDA impermissibly delegated their authority. The Court of Appeals ruled that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the regulations. Upon rehearing, the Court of Appeals found that one individual plaintiff had standing to challenge the regulations and referred the merits of the appeal to the panel.
ISSUES: 1) Are the regulations issued by the USDA valid? 2) Does the Animal Legal Defense Fund have standing to raise a procedural injury claim?
HOLDING: 1) Yes, the regulations issued by the USDA are valid. The Court of Appeals found that the regulations, while at times minimal and potentially difficult to enforce, adequately set minimum standards for the care of primates by exhibitors and researchers. 2) No, the Animal Legal Defense Fund does not have standing to raise a procedural injury claim. Standing to raise a procedural injury claim requires that the procedural norm be one designated to protect some threatened concrete interest of the plaintiff. The Court found that ALDF had raised no such concrete interest in this case.
Federal (U.S.)
Haviland v. Butz
543 F.2d 169
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1976
FACTS: Haviland owned and operated a professional animal act featuring dogs and ponies. Haviland’s act traveled across state lines performing in front of paying audiences and occasionally appeared on commercial television. The Department of Agriculture gave Haviland notice that, as an “exhibitor”, he was in violation of the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 for failure to comply with its licensing provisions. Haviland obtained an exhibitor’s license, and then brought suit against the Secretary of Agriculture arguing that he was not subject to the provisions. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Agriculture. Haviland appealed the decision.
ISSUES: Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Secretary of Agriculture?
HOLDING: No, the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Secretary of Agriculture. Haviland argued that his act did not embrace animal performances and that the Secretary could not expand its coverage. The Court of Appeals disagreed. They held that the statutory listing of covered enterprises was not exhaustive and that the Secretary had the power “to promulgate such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the statutory scheme.” The Court further held that Haviland’s animal act, traveling from state to state and using facilities of interstate communication, was subject to regulation by Congress in the exercise of the commerce power. The Court also determined that the Act’s definition of exhibitor was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The articulated purpose of the Act is the assurance that designated species of animals used in the types of exhibitions covered will receive humane care and treatment. The definition of exhibitor found in the Animal Welfare Act directly implements the legislative objective.
Nevada
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a/k/a PETA v. Bobby Berosini
111 Nev. 615
Supreme Court of Nevada, 1995
FACTS: Bobby Berosini, a world-renowned animal trainer, was secretly videotaped backstage before performances grabbing, slapping, punching, and shaking the orangutans he trained for his show at the Stardust Resort in Las Vegas. The tapes also showed Berosini striking the animals with a black rod ten to twelve inches long. Two animal rights organizations released the videotape and made statements regarding its contents. Berosini sued the animal rights organizations for libel and invasion of privacy. The jury returned a verdict for Berosini. Appellants appealed.
ISSUES: Did the distribution of the videotape and statements concerning its content amount to libel and invasion of privacy?
HOLDING: No, the distribution of the videotape and statements made by the animal rights organization did not amount to libel and invasion of privacy. The court held that the distribution of the video was not false or defamatory because it was an accurate portrayal of Berosini’s discipline methods and he believed that he was doing nothing wrong. They found that a statement made that Berosini “regularly abused” the animals was an evaluative opinion and not libelous. Berosini further argued that a statement PETA made accusing Berosini of beating the animals with steel rods was defamatory. The court found that it was not because the videotape, its contents not in dispute, clearly showed Berosini beating the animals with a black rod. Whether the rods in question were steel or wood was immaterial. The Court also held that the secret filming was not an intrusion on Berosini’s expected seclusion because his only expectation was freedom from interference while training the orangutans. The use of a hidden camera did not in fact interfere with the training and was not highly offensive to a reasonable person. Because Berosini was a public figure, he could not recover for appropriation.