Born Free USA v. Norton
278 F.Supp.2d 5
United States District Court, District of Columbia, 2003
FACTS: Animal rights organizations and two individual plaintiffs brought action challenging the issuance of permits allowing for the importation of 11 African elephants from Swaziland. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the importation of the elephants until the Court reached a final determination on the merits of the case. The defendant zoos, however, argued that the process to import the elephants must begin immediately before the beginning of Swaziland’s rainy season, because the head of the reserve where the elephants are kept stated unequivocally that if he were unable to export the elephants, he would have to kill them.
ISSUES: Should the plaintiffs be granted a preliminary injunction to block the importation of the elephants?
HOLDING: No. The plaintiffs should not be granted a preliminary injunction. In order to prevail on a request for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2) that they will suffer irreparable harm absent the relief requested, 3) that other parties will not be harmed if the requested relief is granted, and 4) that the public interest supports granting the requested relief. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate all four criteria. They did not show a likelihood of success on the merits for numerous reasons including doubts as to their standing. They also failed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if denied relief, because the court found that no detrimental effect to the species had been demonstrated because the imported elephants were to be used for breeding and proceeds from the importation were to be used for the benefit the foreign elephant habitat. The court also found that the federal government was within its authority to grant the permits. The preliminary injunction was denied.