414 F.Supp.3d 191
D.P.R.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Club Gallístico de Puerto Rico and others), participants in Puerto Rico’s cockfighting industry, brought a pre-enforcement declaratory-judgment challenge to Section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which amended the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to extend federal prohibitions on animal fighting (including live-bird fighting) to U.S. territories.
- Section 12616 removed the AWA’s prior “Special Rule for Certain States” and related subsection (d) exemptions, so that the federal ban would apply in Puerto Rico and other territories effective December 20, 2019.
- Plaintiffs asserted multiple constitutional claims: lack of congressional power (Commerce Clause/Territorial Clause), Tenth Amendment/anti-commandeering, bill of attainder, violation of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, First Amendment (speech/association/cultural right), Due Process (procedural/substantive), right to travel, and an uncompensated taking.
- The United States moved for summary judgment defending Congress’s authority under the Commerce and Territorial Clauses and arguing preemption, lack of a bill of attainder, no compensable taking, and that rational-basis review applies; Defendants also raised statute-of-limitations issues for challenges to preexisting AWA provisions.
- The District Court held that plaintiffs had standing to bring the challenge, concluded Section 12616 is a valid exercise of congressional power (Commerce Clause and Territorial Clause), rejected plaintiffs’ federalism and constitutional-rights claims, and denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment while granting the Government’s cross-motion.
- The court acknowledged the asserted local economic impact of the ban but found no legal basis to invalidate the statute or substitute judicial judgment for Congress’s policy choice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge AWA provisions | Plaintiffs: credible threat of prosecution and inability to engage in sponsoring/exhibiting cockfights gives standing to challenge both new and preexisting AWA provisions | U.S.: some AWA provisions predate §12616 and claims are time‑barred by 28 U.S.C. §2401(a) | Court: Plaintiffs have standing to bring facial/as‑applied pre‑enforcement challenge; statute‑of‑limitations arguments do not defeat standing here |
| Commerce Clause / Territorial Clause authority | Plaintiffs: §12616 is not a commerce regulation but a criminal moral ban targeted at territories; lacks findings and exceeds Commerce power | U.S.: AWA regulates economic activity affecting interstate commerce; Congress may legislate for territories | Court: §12616 valid under Commerce Clause (economic activity, jurisdictional element, congressional findings) and Territorial Clause; rational‑basis review satisfied |
| Federalism defenses: Tenth Amendment, bill of attainder, Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act | Plaintiffs: §12616 commandeers Puerto Rico, singles out local actors, and is locally inapplicable under 48 U.S.C. §734; amounts to bill of attainder | U.S.: Tenth Amendment limits don’t apply to Puerto Rico; amendments set general rules, not punitive legislative decrees; Congress intended territorial application | Court: Tenth Amendment anti‑commandeering does not constrain Congress vis‑à‑vis Puerto Rico; statute is not a bill of attainder; congressional intent shows law applies to Puerto Rico |
| Constitutional rights (First Amendment, Due Process, right to travel) and Takings Clause | Plaintiffs: cockfighting is a cultural right and expressive/associational activity; law deprives property value and travel rights; lack of political representation violates procedural due process | U.S.: Prohibits conduct (not protected expression), does not bar advocacy/assembly, is a valid exercise of police power, and does not effect a compensable taking | Court: No fundamental constitutional right to cockfighting; conduct is unprotected, O’Brien analysis not triggered; substantive/procedural due process claims fail; regulatory devaluation is not a per se taking (Andrus/Connolly doctrines apply) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pedro‑Vidal, 371 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.P.R. 2019) (territorial application of federal statutes and discussion of Congress’s power over Puerto Rico)
- United States v. Gilbert, 677 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2012) (upholding federal animal‑fighting statute under Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits on Commerce Clause authority)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (Commerce Clause limits and framework for review)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (permitting regulation of intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce)
- O'Brien v. United States, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for regulation of expressive conduct)
- Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979) (regulatory devaluation and Takings Clause principles)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (standards for declaratory‑judgment jurisdiction in pre‑enforcement challenges)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational basis review for socioeconomic legislation)
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standard for facial challenges)