Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
472 F.3d 872 (2006)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The United States was signatory to a treaty that explicitly protected the family of species that included mute swans. Congress passed an authorizing statute empowering the secretary of the interior (secretary) to enforce the treaty. However, the secretary maintained a policy of withholding regulatory protection from mute swans on the grounds that mute swans were a non-native species. In 2001, a court decision forced the secretary to abandon that policy and extend protection to mute swans. In 2004, Congress amended the authorizing statute to state the sense of Congress that denying regulatory protection to non-native species was consistent with the intent and language of the treaty. The Fund for Animals, Inc. (organization) (plaintiff) reacted to the 2004 amendment by suing the then-current secretary, Dirk Kempthorne (defendant). The organization argued that the 2004 amendment was ambiguous and that because Congress could not have intended to deny the treaty’s explicit language, the courts should interpret the amendment as leaving regulatory protection for non-native mute swans in place. A federal district court dismissed the suit. The organization appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
