United States v. Gibert, 677 F.3d 613

Gibert and co-defendants were indicted for conspiracy to violate the Animal Welfare Act and for participating in an unlawful animal fighting venture (cockfighting) in South Carolina venues in July 2008 and April 2009.
The animal fighting statute defines an animal fighting venture as an event in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, involving fights between at least two animals for sport, wagering, or entertainment.
Gibert pled guilty to conspiracy and reserved the right to challenge Congress's Commerce Clause power and the district court's ruling that knowledge of the interstate nexus was not required.
The district court denied a jury instruction requiring proof of Gibert’s knowledge that the venture was in or affecting interstate commerce; Gibert entered a conditional guilty plea.
The Fourth Circuit reviews Commerce Clause challenges de novo with a presumption of constitutionality and analyzes whether the activity substantially affects interstate commerce, considering Lopez/Morrison framework and related factors.
The court ultimately holds the animal fighting statute is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power and does not require knowledge that the venture touched interstate commerce.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether animal fighting prohibitions fall within the Commerce Clause	Gibert argues the statute exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause power.	Gibert contends animal fighting is intrastate and not substantially affecting commerce.	Statute valid under Commerce Clause
Whether knowledge of interstate nexus is required to convict	The government need not prove knowledge of interstate nexus.	Gibert argues knowledge of nexus should be a mens rea element.	No knowledge of nexus required

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (fundamental limits on Commerce Clause power; no substantial effect where activity is non-economic and lacks nexus)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (commerce power not extend to gender-mileged violence lacking economic character)
Raich v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (economic activity with substantial effect on interstate commerce)
United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2003) (commerce clause analysis for criminal statutes focused on class of activities)
United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009) (cites Lopez/Morrison framework and legislative findings)
United States v. Darby, 37 F.3d 1059 (4th Cir. 1994) (does not require knowledge of interstate nexus for certain offenses)
United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 1995) (example of non-requirement of nexus knowledge for elements tied to interstate commerce)
Talebnejad, 460 F.3d 563 (4th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes mens rea for federal regulatory schemes; discusses scope of commerce nexus)
Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (cockfighting conspiracy—economic activity with interstate links)
United States v. Buculei, 262 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2001) (identifies four-factor Lopez/Morrison test for substantial effect on commerce)