SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – The Humane Society will be allowed to defend a California law currently being challenged that prohibits the import of crocodile and alligator skin and meat.
On May 11, Sacramento federal judge Kim Mueller permitted the Humane Society and the Center for Biological Diversity to join the State of California as defendants in the challenge filed by companies that engage in such activities.
She also accepted those two groups’ response against a requested preliminary injunction against the new law, which is currently subject to a temporary restraining order.
The law was supposed to begin on Jan. 1 and says: “(I)t shall be unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of a crocodile or alligator.”
The companies challenging the law say it is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and violates the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause.
"If Section 653o(b) is allowed to take effect on Jan. 1, plaintiffs will face a wide range of irreparable harms," the suit states.
"Indeed, some irreparable harms are already taking effect in anticipation of the impending trade ban, including canceled orders, lost business transactions and sales, and halted or dramatically curtailed production."
Mueller ruled that the Humane Society and the CBD have a protectable interest in the case. They also successfully argued that their interests might not be adequately represented by the State of California.
“As defendants’ opposition in fact asks the court to construe § 653 as restricting only intrastate commerce in the crocodilian parts at issue, abandoning any claim that the statute regulates importation from out of state,” Mueller wrote.
“The balance of the defendants’ brief rests on this strained and limited reading in an attempt to save the statute, reasoning from this premise to dismiss the applicability of the ESA’s express preemption clause.
“Without reaching the merits of this argument, defendants’ briefing supports the conclusion that defendants will not represent applicants’ interests in the litigation, including at the critical preliminary injunction phase.