Peggy Hill v. Barry Coggins
867 F.3d 499
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) visited the Cherokee Bear Zoo in 2013, observed four bears in small concrete pits showing pacing and begging, and sued under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) seeking injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Zoo’s husbandry of the bears constituted an unlawful “take” (harass/harm) of threatened grizzly bears in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 1538.
- The district court found Plaintiffs had Article III standing and that the four bears were grizzly bears, but concluded the Zoo’s practices did not constitute an ESA taking—relying in part on Animal Welfare Act (AWA) compliance.
- At trial Plaintiffs introduced zoo signage, web pages, USDA and veterinary records, and expert testimony (Dr. Ramsay) identifying the bears as grizzlies and criticizing husbandry; the Zoo countered that the bears were European brown bears and defended its practices and veterinary care.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed standing and the bears’ status as grizzlies, held the district court abused legal analysis in applying the harassment exclusion, vacated the no-taking ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Plaintiffs suffered concrete aesthetic injury (prevented from viewing bears in ESA-compatible conditions) and will return if improved | Zoo disputed injury | Affirmed: Plaintiffs have standing (injury, traceability, redressability) |
| Are the subject bears grizzly bears? | Evidence (zoo materials, signs, USDA/vet records, expert ID) shows they are grizzlies | Zoo disputed ID; vet said European brown bears | Affirmed: district court’s factual finding that bears are grizzlies stands |
| Admissibility of expert ID (Rule 26 disclosure) | Late disclosure harmless; expert previously opined in declaration | Zoo argued unfair surprise and discovery violation | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; admission harmless under Southern States factors |
| Proper interpretation of 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 ("generally accepted" exclusion to "harass") and ESA taking | "Generally accepted" modifies the captive-animal exclusions; exclusion applies only if practices are both generally accepted and AWA-compliant; district court erred by treating AWA compliance alone as sufficient | Zoo/district court treated AWA compliance alone as excluding harassment; reliance on AWA gives clear standard | Reversed/Remanded: majority holds the exclusion requires both "generally accepted" and AWA-compliant practices; vacates no-taking ruling and remands for district court to (1) determine whether Zoo practices meet the regulatory definition of harassment and (2) whether they fall within the captive-animal exclusion (including whether practices are "generally accepted"). The court reserved judgment on "harm." |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing and imminence standards)
- Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Greater Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (broad ESA purpose and deference to Secretary of the Interior)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (aesthetic/recreational injury supports standing when redressable)
- S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (factors for harmlessness of discovery nondisclosure)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (avoidance of rendering statutory/regulatory language superfluous)
- Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 855 F.3d 178 (district court discretion in discovery/expert rulings)