American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.
398 U.S. App. D.C. 79
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- This case concerns Feld Entertainment's use of bullhooks and chains on Asian elephants and whether that conduct constitutes a take under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requiring a section 10 permit.
- The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing after a bench trial; on appeal, the panel reviews standing de novo.
- Rider witnessed elephant mistreatment over 1997–1999 while employed by Feld and later was paid by plaintiffs to testify; district court found his credibility lacking.
- API argued informational standing under ESA §10(c) and Havens standing under §9, but the district court rejected these theories.
- The panel assumes the challenged practices could amount to a taking but holds Rider and API lack Article III standing based on credibility and causation findings, affirming dismissal.
- This decision resolves standing, not the merits of the ESA take claim against Feld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rider has standing given credibility findings | Rider's emotional attachment suffices for standing | District court credibility defeats attachment | Rider lacks standing (clear error not shown) |
| Whether API has informational standing under ESA §10(c) | API entitled to information from permit process | ESA §9, §10 do not grant such informational standing to API here | API lacks informational standing |
| Whether API has Havens organizational standing | Feld's practices injure API's advocacy and require resources | No direct conflict with API's mission; causation missing | API lacks Havens standing due to causation and injury failure |
| Whether API has organizational standing for advocacy activities apart from injury to services | Advocacy impairment supports Havens standing | Center for Law & Education limits Havens standing; no direct injury shown | Havens standing not established for API |
| Whether the court should affirm based on lack of standing | Plaintiffs have injury in fact and redressability | Record shows lack of credible injury/causation; no standing | Affirm on lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (irreducible constitutional minimum of standing)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standing requires concrete injury and redressability)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing via concrete injury to activities)
- Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (limits on organizational standing and self-inflicted injury)
- Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach, 469 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Havens standing applied to advocacy activities)
- Center for Law & Education v. Dep't of Education, 396 F.3d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limits on advocacy-based standing without direct mission conflict)
- National Treasury Employees Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (requirement of direct conflict between conduct and mission for Havens standing)
- Equal Rights Center v. Post Props., Inc., 633 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (framework for Havens standing analysis and resource expenditures)
- Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman, 154 F.3d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (pleading-stage injury vs. evidentiary showing for standing at trial)
- Akins v. FEC, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (informational standing where statute entitles disclosure)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 583 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (informational standing under FACA context)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (organizational standing limits; mere concern insufficient)