Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Animal Welfare
Plaintiffs Fail to Establish Injury-In-Fact,
Lack Standing to Challenge Amendments
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In White v. United States, 2:08-cv-118, 2009 WL 173509 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2009), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) because they had failed to establish they had suffered injury-in-fact.
Background
Plaintiffs, who were in the business of selling and breeding birds, brought this action challenging anti-cockfighting amendments to the AWA, 7 U.S.C. § 2156, and the defendants moved to dismiss. Id. at *1.
Arguments
Defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not suffered any injury-in-fact. Id. at *3.
Plaintiffs had set forth a scenario in their pleadings that explained how they could potentially be injured if the law was not applied properly and if their intentions were misconstrued. Id. at *4. They also claimed to have suffered economic loss because of the amendments. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The court explained that a plaintiff in federal court must establish constitutional standing, which requires a showing that the plaintiff has suffered "(1) an injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and that is (3) likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Id. at *2-3. The court found that the theoretical scenario in the plaintiffs' pleadings, which detailed what injuries might occur if the law was not applied properly and if their intentions were misconstrued, was too speculative to constitute injury-in-fact. Id. at *4. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' economic injury claim, finding that any such loss could not be "fairly traceable" to the amendments and that the relief sought could not redress the asserted injuries, because cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states, meaning that there was no legal market for it and even if the amendments were invalidated, state laws would still prohibit it. Id. at *4-5. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. Id. at *5.
The case was decided on January 26, 2009.