Hernandez-Gotay v. United States, 985 F.3d 71

Section 12616 (2018) amended the Animal Welfare Act to remove an exception that had allowed the sponsorship and exhibition of cockfighting in Puerto Rico when permitted by local law, and closed an advertising/ mail exception; it extended existing federal prohibitions to cover Puerto Rico.
Congress justified the change on animal-cruelty, public-health (avian disease spread), and crime-related grounds; prior AWA findings emphasized interstate movement, advertising, and gambling associated with animal fighting ventures.
Plaintiffs (cockfight venue owners, breeders, workers, an artisan, and a cultural association) filed consolidated pre-enforcement facial and as-applied challenges alleging Commerce Clause, Territorial Clause, First Amendment, and Due Process violations; district court granted summary judgment for the government.
The First Circuit considered standing and ripeness, finding at least one plaintiff (Ortiz), who regularly sponsors and exhibits cockfights, had a credible threat of prosecution and thus standing and ripeness.
The court affirmed: Section 12616 is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power; it rejected plaintiffs’ First Amendment (speech and association) and Due Process claims; because Commerce Clause sufficed, Territorial Clause was not reached.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / Ripeness	Plaintiffs lack a concrete injury; pre-enforcement challenge premature	Ortiz regularly sponsors/exhibits cockfights and faces credible threat of prosecution	Ortiz has standing; claims ripe for adjudication
Commerce Clause	Congress exceeded its power; statute regulates non-economic local conduct	Cockfighting is economic/commercial (sport, wagering, entertainment); AWA contains jurisdictional hook and congressional findings support substantial effect on interstate commerce	Section 12616 is a valid exercise of Commerce Clause power
First Amendment — Speech	Cockfighting is expressive conduct tied to culture and identity	Conduct is not intended/understood as communicative; any expressive element is incidental and regulable	Cockfighting not protected expressive conduct; First Amendment claim rejected
First Amendment — Association	Criminalizing cockfighting deters assembly to discuss/explore cockfighting views	Statute bans acts (sponsorship/exhibition) but does not restrict speech or peaceful association about cockfighting	Associational claim fails; statute does not curtail expressive assembly
Due Process (procedural & substantive)	Law deprives plaintiffs of liberty/property without process; infringes unenumerated rights	No cognizable liberty interest at stake (plaintiffs conceded only First Amendment interest) and rational-basis review supports statute	Due Process challenges rejected

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (aggregate-effects rationale for Commerce Clause regulation of local economic activity)
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits on Commerce Clause; role of jurisdictional element)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (use of express jurisdictional elements in Commerce Clause analysis)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (ripeness and standing in pre-enforcement declaratory-judgment context)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ( Article III injury-in-fact, traceability, redressability framework)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (court's independent obligation to ensure standing)
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for when conduct constitutes protected expressive activity)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (two-part test for expressive conduct: intent and reasonable understanding by observers)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (recognition of historical limits on protection for depictions or conduct involving animal cruelty)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (distinction between penalizing association versus speech; limits on material-support statutes)
Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial-challenge standard; "plainly legitimate sweep")
Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 813 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment factual-view standard on appeal)