Club Gallístico De Puerto Rico Inc. v. United States
Decision Date | 28 October 2019 |
Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 19-1481 (GAG); (consolidated with Civil No. 19-1739 (GAG)) |
Citation | 414 F.Supp.3d 191 |
Parties | CLUB GALLÍSTICO DE PUERTO RICO INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Rafael A. Ojeda-Diez, Ojeda & Ojeda, Felix M. Roman-Carrasquillo, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.
Christopher R. Healy, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Id. at 58-59. The Pedro-Vidal case involved the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (FDPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3591 - 3598, and whether it applied to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico just as in every state. The Court ruled that it did. Similarly, Section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, infra , that amends the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (AWA), infra , falls within that first category of laws. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the unquestionable authority to treat the Commonwealth equally to the states. Neither the Commonwealth's political status, nor the Territorial Clause, impede the United States Government from enacting laws that apply to all citizens of this Nation alike, whether in a state or territory.
On May 22, 2019 Club Gallístico de Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Club Gallístico") and other plaintiffs1 filed a Complaint (Civil No. 19-1481 (GAG)), pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 - 2202, against the President of United States, the United States Government, and other defendants2 alleging that the recent Section 12616 amendments to the AWA which extend the prohibition on animal fighting ventures to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other territories violate bedrock principles of federalism and rights protected under the United States Constitution. On August 1, 2019, Asociación Cultural y Deportiva del Gallo Fino de Pelea ("Asociación Cultural") and other plaintiffs3 filed a parallel complaint (Civil No. 19-1739 (GAG)), against the United States Government and all other defendants proffering similar allegations as in Club Gallístico's suit and pleading additional constitutional rights violations. On August 5, 2019, this Court consolidated both actions.4
The two lead Plaintiffs, Club Gallístico and Asociación Cultural, are both non-profit organizations involved in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's cockfighting industry. (Docket Nos. 1; 16). The former operates one of the largest and "most visited" cockfighting arenas in the island and the latter is an association whose goal is to promote and preserve cockfighting in the territory. Id. The remaining Plaintiffs have participated in the Commonwealth's cockfighting world as cockpit owners, cockpit judges and other officials, gamecock breeders and owners, artisans, and otherwise cockfighting enthusiasts. They all request this Court to issue a declaratory judgment holding that the Section 12616 amendments are unconstitutional. Following the filing of the Complaints, the parties agreed to a fast-tracked briefing schedule for summary judgment cross-motions and replies.
Currently, pending before the Court are Plaintiff Club Gallístico and others' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 34) and Defendant United States and others' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.5 (Docket No. 38).
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, cockfighting is "the sport of pitting gamecocks to fight and the breeding and training of them for that purpose." Cockfighting , Encyclopædia Britannica (2016). Similarly, renowned folklorist Alan Dundes indicates that "[t]he cockfight, in which two equally matched roosters -typically bred and raised for such purposes and often armed with steel spurs (gaffs)—engage in mortal combat in a circular pit surrounded by mostly if not exclusively male spectators, is one of the oldest recorded human games or sports." A. Dundes, THE COCKFIGHT: A CASEBOOK vii (University Wisconsin Press, 1994). Professor Dundes further highlights that the contest has been "banned in many countries on the grounds that that [it] constitutes inhumane cruelty to animal" yet "continues to flourish as an undergrounds or illegal sport." Id.
In colonial North America, cockfighting was introduced at an early date and reached its peak popularity between 1750 and 1800, notably in the colonies that extended from North Carolina to New York. Ed Crews, Once Popular and Socially Acceptable: Cockfighting , The Colonial Williamsburg Journal (Autumn 2008) available at https://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn08/rooster.cfm. Nonetheless, during these years colonial authorities occasionally tried to ban it. For example, in 1752, the College of William and Mary directed its students to avoid it all together. Id. Following the Revolutionary War, "some citizens of the new United States looked upon cockfighting as an unsavory vestige of English culture and advocated its abandonment." Id. By the mid-1800s, cockfighting was mostly considered "cruel and wrong" and several states had passed laws against animal cruelty, including Massachusetts. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Tilton, 49 Mass. 232 (1844).
In the case of Puerto Rico, historians posit that cockfighting has been practiced in the island since the late eighteenth century. Following the United States' acquisition of the territory in 1898, General Guy Vernor Henry, the island's second military governor, enacted a law forbidding animal cruelty, which specifically included cockfights. See BEAKS AND SPURS: COCKFIGHTING IN PUERTO RICO , National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, National Parks Services (May 29, 2014). This prohibition lasted until August 12, 1933 when Governor Robert Hayes Gore approved a law, authored by then Senate President Rafael Martínez Nadal, making these contests legal once again. In the decades following this law's approval, others were passed that sought to regulate every aspect of this industry. The most recent of these laws is the Puerto Rico Gamecocks of the New Millennium Act, Act 98-2017 as amended, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 15, §§ 301 et seq. Under this Act, the Commonwealth's government enabled cockfighting; delegated its oversight to the Sports and Recreation Department; authorized the issuance of licenses to cockpits, gamecock breeders, and cockfight judges; and, established penalties for anyone who violated this law. Id.
On the other hand, and as detailed in the subsequent section, since 1976 Congress has progressively outlawed cockfighting throughout the Nation. Parallel to efforts at the federal level, all fifty states, and the District of Columbia, have effectively prohibited these fighting ventures. See COCKFIGHTING LAWS , National Conference of State Legislatures, Vol. 22, No. 1 (January 2014). Louisiana's ban passed in 2007 and it is the most recent state legislative action in this direction. Id. Although cockfighting remains illegal in all states, punishments vary across the board; some states prohibit ancillary activities, thirty-one states permit possession of cockfighting implements and twelve states allow possession of fighting live-birds, even though cockfighting itself remains illegal.
Id. Until the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, the only jurisdictions that had not proscribed cockfights comprised the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Virgin Islands. Id.
In 1966, Congress enacted the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (LAWA) primarily "to protect the owners of dogs and cats from theft of such pets" and to prevent the sale or use of stolen pets and ensure humane treatment in research facilities. See Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 - 2159 (1994 & Supp. V). Four years later, the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 amended the LAWA to more generally address issues concerning mammal and bird brutality. In 1976, and relevant to this case, the Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976 outlawed for the first-time all animal fighting ventures in which animals were moved in interstate or foreign commerce. See P. L. No. 94-279, 90 Stat. 417 (1976). An animal fighting venture extended to any event involving a fight "between at least two animals" for purposes "of sport, wagering, or entertainment", except events where animals hunt other animals. Id. Anyone found engaging in these activities was subject to a monetary fine ($5,000 maximum) or imprisonment (1-year maximum). Id. Nonetheless, the amendments contained a provision, sub-section (d), which exempted live-bird fighting ventures if the fight occurred "in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof." Id. For purposes of the AWA, the term "State" included, and still does , "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States." Id.
Following this initial ban, Congress has gradually expanded the range of animal fighting prohibitions, notably those concerning live-bird fights. In 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P. L. No. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134 (2002), limited the live-bird exemption through a "Special Rule for Certain States" provision which applied to persons who...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Support Working Animals, Inc. v. Desantis
...for the public good in heavily regulated fields such as gambling "per se do not constitute takings"); Club Gallístico de P.R. Inc. v. United States , 414 F. Supp. 3d 191, 212 (D.P.R. 2019) (on summary judgment, finding amendments to federal statute prohibiting cockfighting in Puerto Rico co......
-
Hernández-Gotay v. United States, 19-2236
...Due Process rights, and that Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce and Territorial Clauses. Club Gallístico de P.R. Inc. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 3d 191, 201 (D.P.R. 2019). The plaintiffs lodged both facial and as-applied pre-enforcement challenges to the statute. Id. at 200......
-
United States v. Hatfield
... ... Gibert, 677 ... F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2012); Club Gallistico de Puerto Rico ... Inc. v. United States, ... ...
-
Salas v. United States
...ventures, including live-bird fighting, in every United States jurisdiction[]” Club Gallstico de Puerto Rico Inc. v. United States, 414 F.Supp.3d 191, 200 (D.P.R. 2019) (citations omitted), aff'd sub nom. Hernandez-Gotay v. United States, 985 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. Jan. 14, 2021). Currently, § 2......
-
"Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude": The Constitutional and Persistent Immigration Law Doctrine.
...lawsuits seeking a declaration that the cockfighting ban is unconstitutional. Club Gallistico de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 3d 191 (D. Puerto Rico 2019); Linsangan v. United States, 2019 WL 6915943 (D. Guam 2019). In both cases, the district courts rejected a "cultural......