Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Humane Society Challenges Mailability of Animal Fighting Periodicals

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Humane Society of the United States v. U.S. Postal Service, 609 F. Supp. 2d 85, 2009 WL 1097413 (D.D.C. 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the Humane Society had standing to challenge the U.S. Postal Service's denial of its petition to declare an animal fighting periodical nonmailable pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), but remanded the issue of mailability to the Postal Service for further consideration because Congress had amended the AWA subsequent to the Humane Society bringing this action.

Background

The Humane Society of the United States petitioned the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to declare a monthly periodical entitled The Feathered Warrior "nonmailable" pursuant to the AWA, 7 U.S.C. § 2156, which prohibits using United States mail to advertise certain "animal fighting ventures," and the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 3001, which renders mail that is punishable under the AWA "nonmailable." Id. at *1. The USPS denied the petition, and the Humane Society sought judicial review, claiming that the denial was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." Id.

Arguments

The Humane Society argued that it had organizational standing to challenge the USPS's decision because it expends a substantial amount of financial and human resources combating animal fighting ventures. Id. at *2-3.

The USPS argued that the Humane Society lacked standing to challenge its decision because it had not been injured, its expenditures could not be reasonably traced to the USPS's actions, and "an order forcing USPS to declare The Feathered Warrior nonmailable would not decrease illegal animal fights or the number of law enforcement raids on such fights." Id. at *3.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found that the Humane Society had satisfied the constitutional standing requirements because its asserted financial injuries were sufficiently concrete and specific, and the injury was fairly traceable to the USPS's conduct and thus redressable because The Feathered Warrior promoted and furthered illegal animal fighting ventures in several ways. Id. at *4. The court further held that the Humane Society had satisfied prudential standing requirements because its injury was "within the zone-of-interests protected or regulated by the Animal Welfare Act." Id. at *5. The court also ruled that letters from the USPS to the Humane Society denying its petition constituted a "final agency action" appealable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at *6. However, because Congress had amended the AWA to clarify the type of animal fighting material that must be treated as nonmailable after the Humane Society brought this action, the court remanded the question of the mailability of The Feathered Warrior to the USPS for further consideration. Id. at *10.

The case was decided on April 23, 2009.