7th Circuit Upholds Puppy Mill Ban

The Seventh Circuit ruled that banning sales of out of state breeders does not violate the Commerce clause, and should help reduce puppy mills. Since the law's enactment, pet stores in Chicago are limited to selling dogs, kittens, and rabbits purchased from animal shelters, nonprofit humane societies or animal rescue organizations.

Before it's effect in 2015, Chicago based pet shops brought up a federal complaint that accused lawmakers of doing more to help puppy mills with the law than shutting them down. The complaint argues that the ordinance does not eliminate the facilities, but eliminated the source of commercially bred puppies in the county that are highly regulated. So consumers wanting a pure-bred puppy will go straight to the source(the puppy mill) instead of going to the pet stores.

The Seventh Circuit found that they failed to state a claim. U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes states that, "the puppy-mill ordinance doesn’t discriminate against interstate commerce, even in mild practical effect, so it requires no special cost-benefit justification under the Commerce Clause.”

U.S. Circuit Judge David Hamilton said he will allow the pet stores to amend their suit with evidence of the law's actual impact on pet sales now that the ordinance is in effect since the ordinance will probably not reduce the demand for expensive, pure bred pets.  

Comments from Allen:  As someone who has owned pets from animal shelters as well as specially-bred dogs and cats, I think this law is atrocious. Who wants to go to a pet store for an animal that is the same as one you get from the puppy pound?  By the same token, I am also aware that if you want a particular breed of animal, you will probably not find one in a pet store; you will have to contact a professional breeder.

The question in this case has to do with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce "among the several States."   That phrase was much more easily understood in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified.  Since that time, the definition has broadened to such an extent that Congress can regulate almost anything.

Let me give you an example of two things, one which can be regulated by Congress and one which can not under the interstate commerce clause.  #1:  I buy a cell phone. Congress can pass all kinds of laws concerning cell phones, because their component parts come from various states, and they are assembled in China.  #2.  A craftsman hand-carves wooden puppies in Idaho and sells them in Idaho.  Congress cannot regulate the sale of these items under the commerce clause, because nothing in the manufacture or distibution of these items concerns more than one state.

The pet store owners in this case were arguing that we have a scenario like #1 involved here, so the Commerce Clause is affected.  Well, just because interstate commerce is involved does not mean a city ordinance passing a pet sale law violates it.



***********************************************************************************************************************

Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen handles cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.

Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.

Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents, truck accidents, auto accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.

Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI), traffic violations, Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, battery and assault charges, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.


Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.
Sources for more information:

https://www.courthousenews.com/chicago-ban-puppy-mills-upheld-7th-circuit
/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

7 Things Lawyers Can't Tell Jurors

Image
 It is a trial lawyer's job to educate jurors, and tell them what they need to know in order to decide cases. Despite this, there are many things, true things, that lawyers are not allowed to tell jurors directly in statements to the jury or indirectly through testimony of their witnesses. Lawyers know these things, though, and I thought you might like to know some of things. #1. A lawyer can't tell the jurors anything that happened during settlement negotiations. He cannot let the jurors know, when asking them to make the defendant pay his client $100,000 that the defendant agreed to pay him $80,000 prior to the trial. The reason for this is that you want settlement negotiations to be very open. You don't want to damage a negotiation session because someone is afraid that what they say will get repeated to a jury if you don't strike a deal. #2 In Idaho, a lawyer can't tell the jurors that the defendant has insurance. In many other states, he can. Bec...
Read more

OBAMA APPOINTEE DENIES GIULIANI ABILITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, RESULTS IN $148 MILLION JUDGMENT

Image
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 protests, Rudy Giuliani has been ordered to pay over $148 million in damages to two Georgia election workers named by the former New York mayor.  What has not been explained to the general public is that there was never any trial concerning whether Mr. Giuliani had actually slandered or libeled these two persons.   In the case of Giuliani, the two Georgia election workers listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Giuliani sued him for saying they engaged in what amounted to election fraud.  They are allowed to ask the defendant ex-mayor for documents relevant to their suit and to his defense. These women brought their case against Giuliani in a jurisdiction that is heavily populated with Democrats.  They could have sued in their home state, Georgia, but did not. They wanted a jury pool of anti-Trump democrats, so they sued in Washington, D.C. They managed to get an incredibly biased Barack Obama-appointed, anti-Trump judge....
Read more

Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit

Image
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980. Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother. One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw. Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs...
Read more