Terry Wilkins v. David Daniels
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3982
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ohio enacted the Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes Act (Ohio Rev. Code §§ 935.01–935.99) after 2011 incidents involving exotic animals.
- Effective Sept. 5, 2012, preexisting owners had to register with the Ohio Department of Agriculture and microchip each animal.
- Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, possession of regulated animals requires a permit unless exempted, with microchip implantation required for permits.
- Exemptions exist, including accreditation by AZA or ZAA, among others, relieving microchip/permit obligations.
- Appellants—seven exotic-animal owners—challenge First Amendment rights (association and speech) and the Fifth Amendment Takings claim related to microchips, and seek injunctive relief.
- The district court denied injunctive relief; the Sixth Circuit affirms, holding no First Amendment violation and no physical taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act compel association with AZA or ZAA? | Appellants must join AZA/ZAA to comply, effectively forcing association. | Appellants have noncoercive options, including exemptions; no mandatory association. | No mandatory association found; burden falls short of compelled association. |
| Does the Act compel subsidizing private speech by AZA or ZAA? | Joining AZA/ZAA would force funding of their speech. | There is no compelled subsidy because joining is not mandatory. | No compelled subsidy; no First Amendment violation. |
| Does microchipping constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment? | Microchip requirement amounts to a physical taking. | Not a physical taking; regulation akin to general welfare rules and no government occupation of property. | Not a taking; microchipping is regulatory, not a physical taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2001) (compelled subsidies and association scrutiny framework; final standard cited by court)
- Knox v. Servs. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (U.S. 2012) (exacting scrutiny for compelled subsidies; compelled association context)
- Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1984) (right to association and corollary right not to associate)
- Phelan v. Laramie Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Bd. of Trs., 235 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2000) (compelled speech/association analysis and minimal deterrent effect not enough)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (takings analysis; final decision on regulatory takings inquiry)
- Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (ripeness framework for takings claims (final decision and compensation procedures))
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (physical takings doctrine; invasion vs. regulation)
- Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (U.S. 2000) (corollary right not to associate; compelled association doctrine)