United States

Share |

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter

Summary: In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss.

In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss.

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y

Summary: After the International Court of Justice ruled against Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, Sea Shepherd moved to dismiss the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling regarding Sea Shepherd’s own actions in the Antarctic. Sea Shepherd claimed that because the Institute had announced that it would not engage in whaling in the 2014-15 season, its claim was moot. This argument, though, ignored the fact the Institute also stated that it plans to resume whaling in the future, leading the Court to dismiss the motion.

After the International Court of Justice ruled against Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, Sea Shepherd moved to dismiss the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling regarding Sea Shepherd’s own actions in the Antarctic. Sea Shepherd claimed that because the Institute had announced that it would not engage in whaling in the 2014-15 season, its claim was moot. This argument, though, ignored the fact the Institute also stated that it plans to resume whaling in the future, leading the Court to dismiss the motion.

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc.

Summary: After the Institute was denied an injunction in the trial court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing Sea Shepherd from attacking any of the Institute’s vessels in any way and from coming within 500 yards of any Institute vessel operating in the open sea.

After the Institute was denied an injunction in the trial court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing Sea Shepherd from attacking any of the Institute’s vessels in any way and from coming within 500 yards of any Institute vessel operating in the open sea.

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc.

Summary: The Institute of Cetacean Research, a Japanese whaling group, sued the direct action environmental protection organization Sea Shepherd, claiming that Sea Shepherd’s actions taken against the whaling group’s vessels in the Antarctic are violent and dangerous. The Institute claimed that Sea Shepherd had rammed whaling ships, thrown dangerous objects on to the ships, attempted to prevent them from moving forward, and navigated its vessels in such a way as to endanger the Japanese ships and their crews. The Institute’s request for an injunction was denied when the Court held that the Institute did not establish the necessary factors. The Court did state, however, that though Sea Shepherd’s acts did not constitute piracy, it did not approve of the organization’s methods or mission.

The Institute of Cetacean Research, a Japanese whaling group, sued the direct action environmental protection organization Sea Shepherd, claiming that Sea Shepherd’s actions taken against the whaling group’s vessels in the Antarctic are violent and dangerous. The Institute claimed that Sea Shepherd had rammed whaling ships, thrown dangerous objects on to the ships, attempted to prevent them from moving forward, and navigated its vessels in such a way as to endanger the Japanese ships and their crews. The Institute’s request for an injunction was denied when the Court held that the Institute did not establish the necessary factors. The Court did state, however, that though Sea Shepherd’s acts did not constitute piracy, it did not approve of the organization’s methods or mission.

Detailed Discussion on Whaling

Summary: Much of today's discussions about whaling are centered on Japan's program in the Antarctic. While some organizations like Sea Shepherd have taken a direct action approach to ending Japan's hunt, some organizations and countries have pursued legal approaches to doing so. Both approaches have seen some success, but the future of whaling remains uncertain.

Much of today's discussions about whaling are centered on Japan's program in the Antarctic. While some organizations like Sea Shepherd have taken a direct action approach to ending Japan's hunt, some organizations and countries have pursued legal approaches to doing so. Both approaches have seen some success, but the future of whaling remains uncertain.

AL - Initiatives - Amendment 5, Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife

Summary: Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2014 election. The proposed amendment asks voters "to clarify that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing."

Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2014 election. The proposed amendment asks voters "to clarify that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing."

ME - Initiatives - Question 1, An Act To Prohibit the Use of Dogs, Bait or Traps When Hunting Bears Except under Certain Circumstances

Summary: Question 1 is a citizen initiated referendum that will be appearing on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The referendum seeks to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt or pursue bear, the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, and the setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear. There are certain exceptions for scientific and research purposes and for public safety.

Question 1 is a citizen initiated referendum that will be appearing on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The referendum seeks to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt or pursue bear, the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, and the setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear. There are certain exceptions for scientific and research purposes and for public safety.

MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-2, A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 520 OF 2012, ESTABLISHING A HUNTING SEASON FOR WOLVES AND AUTHORIZING ANNUAL WOLF HUNTING SEASONS

Summary: This is the second wolf-related ballot measure for the November 4, 2014 election that also operates as a veto referendum. If the proposal is approved, it would uphold Public Act 21 of 2013, which authorizes the Natural Resources Commission to directly designate game species (including wolves) and determine hunting seasons. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote.

This is the second wolf-related ballot measure for the November 4, 2014 election that also operates as a veto referendum. If the proposal is approved, it would uphold Public Act 21 of 2013, which authorizes the Natural Resources Commission to directly designate game species (including wolves) and determine hunting seasons. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote.

MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-1, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected

Summary: This proposal for 2014 is a referendum of Public Act 520 of 2012, which authorizes the establishment of the first open hunting season for wolves. It will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure will UPHOLD Public Act 520, which allows the authorization of wolf hunting seasons in Michigan. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote.

This proposal for 2014 is a referendum of Public Act 520 of 2012, which authorizes the establishment of the first open hunting season for wolves. It will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure will UPHOLD Public Act 520, which allows the authorization of wolf hunting seasons in Michigan. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote.
Share |