Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, a police officer, Michael Roane, shot and killed Tina Ray’s dog while attempting to serve an arrest warrant. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Roane and remanded the case for trial. The crux of the case was the dispute over Roane's perception of the threat posed by the dog. Roane asserted that he believed the dog was unrestrained and posed an immediate threat to his safety. However, Ray and other witnesses testified that Roane had stopped his retreat and took a step towards the dog before shooting, suggesting that he knew the dog could no longer reach him and did not pose an imminent threat. The Court of Appeals held that this dispute over material facts was for a jury to resolve, not a court, and could not be decided prior to trial. The court also held that if a jury credits Ray's allegations and draws permissible inferences in her favor, it could infer that Roane's shooting of the dog was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court also rejected Roane's claim to qualified immunity. View "Ray v. Roane" on Justia Law

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wishes to conduct undercover animal-cruelty investigations and publicize what they uncover. But it faces a formidable obstacle: North Carolina’s Property Protection Act (the Act), passed to punish “any person who intentionally gains access to the non-public areas of another’s premises and engages in an act that exceeds the person’s authority to enter.” The Act goes on to explain what actions “exceed” authority. Some provisions appear more narrowly focused, prohibiting capturing, removing, or photographing employer data. Even these more specific provisions, however, potentially reach anything from stealing sensitive client information to ferreting out trade secrets in hopes of starting a competing business.   The Fourth Circuit enjoined North Carolina from applying the Act to PETA’s newsgathering activities but severed and reserved all other applications for future case-by-case adjudication. Here, the Act regulates at least some non-expressive, unprotected conduct. The court wrote these more general regulations of conduct do not insulate the Act from the First Amendment’s wringer when the Act bars speech. Absent any indication that the Act “as a whole” chills First Amendment freedoms, the court explained it follows the same principles under overbreadth. View "PETA v. NC Farm Bureau" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, visited the Cherokee Bear Zoo. Plaintiffs observed bear pits containing four bears, identified by signs as grizzly bears. The pits were compact and made entirely of concrete. Each pit had a small pool of water, but neither had any vegetation nor any shade. Plaintiffs observed the bears in listless form, pacing and begging for food. Patrons fed the bears apples and dry bread sold by the Zoo. Plaintiffs brought a citizen suit, alleging that the Zoo’s practice of keeping the bears in the described living conditions constituted a “tak[ing]” of and possession of a taken threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1). Plaintiffs’ argued that the Zoo’s conduct is a form of “harass[ment]” of, and “harm” to, its bears. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in favor of Plaintiffs on the issues of standing and the bears’ status as protected but vacated the court’s ruling against Plaintiffs on the issue of whether the Zoo is committing an unlawful taking. To establish harassment, Plaintiffs must prove that the Zoo’s husbandry practices fall within 50 C.F.R. 17.3’s definition of harass and that those practices do not fall within the enumerated exclusion. The district court did not reach the first issue and improperly declined to ask whether the Zoo’s animal husbandry practices are “generally accepted.” View "Hill v. Coggins" on Justia Law

The Animal Welfare Act does not directly address license renewal but does expressly authorize the USDA to promulgate and implement its own renewal standards. PETA filed suit challenging the license renewal process for animal exhibitors promulgated by the USDA through which the USDA may renew such license despite a licensee's noncompliance with the Act. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the USDA's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit that the Act's licensing regulations embody a reasonable accommodation of the conflicting policy interests Congress has delegated to the USDA and were entitled to Chevron deference. View "PETA v. USDA" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted by a jury of violating and conspiring to violate the animal fighting prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. 2156(a) (the animal fighting statute), resulting from their participation in "gamefowl derbies," otherwise known as "cockfighting." Defendants raised several challenges on appeal. Upon review of the parties' arguments, the court held that the animal fighting statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause; that the provision of different elements of the crime in jurisdictions permitting animal fighting did not violate defendants' equal protection rights; and that the district court did not err in conducting Scott Lawson's trial jointly with the trials of his co-defendants. The court held, however, that the juror's misconduct violated Lawson's right to a fair trial, and therefore vacated the convictions for violating the animal fighting statute. The court also vacated the conspiracy convictions with respect to those defendants for which the conspiracy related solely to the animal fighting activities. Further, the court rejected the challenges made by several defendants to the illegal gambling convictions, and affirmed the convictions relating to those offenses as well as the conspiracy convictions for which illegal gambling was one of the objects of the conspiracy alleged. View "United States v. Lawson; United States v. Hutto; United States v. Hutto; United States v. Peeler; United States v. Dyal; United States v. Collins, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants were indicted for their roles in organizing, operating, and participating in "gamefowl derbies," otherwise known as "cockfighting." Defendants entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of conspiring to violate the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. 2156 (the animal fighting statute). At issue was whether Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause in enacting a criminal prohibition against animal fighting. The court held that the animal fighting statute prohibits activities that substantially affected interstate commerce and thus, was a legitimate exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The court also held that the statute did not require the government to prove defendants' knowledge regarding the particular venture's nexus to interstate commerce. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Gibert; United States v. Benfield; United States v. Hoover; United States v. Grooms; United States v. Jeffcoat" on Justia Law