NABR Animal Law §ection - Private Right of Action and Standing under the AWA

Private Right of Action - In general, lawsuits brought by individuals who claim federal statutes are being violated, can only be brought against the agency that administers those laws. Individuals cannot bring suits directly against regulated entities unless the statute at issue grants individuals a private right of action. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not do so and consequently, many animal rights advocates would like to see the Animal Welfare Act amended to specifically authorize a private right of action.

Standing - Standing is a threshold issue that determines whether a person is entitled to bring a complaint before the courts. Several lawsuits alleging violations of the Animal Welfare Act have been filed and rejected on standing grounds prior to consideration of the actual issue in the case. Therefore, many animal rights advocates have called for the AWA to be amended to ease the standing requirements, and/or to specifically grant animals standing to sue under the Act.

A federal court held in 1986 (see below) that the Animal Welfare Act does not provide for a private right of action. In discussing this issue the court stated the following:

A review of the Act thus underscores two points. One is a commitment to administrative supervision of animal welfare. The other is the subordination of such supervision to the continued independence of research scientists. . . . Judges and juries possess limited acquaintance with the problems and requirements of biomedical research. Their judgments and verdicts may fail to provide that modicum of consistency and predictability without which laboratory scientists would find it difficult to operate. To add extensive pre-trial discovery of a facility's practices to the administrative inspections already authorized by Congress, 7 U.S.C. § 2146, would impose a gratuitous burden upon federally funded research. Finally, the prospect of damage awards in excess of the prescribed statutory penalties might discourage scientists from entering many lines of medical inquiry. . . . To accord plaintiffs standing to sue by virtue of a private cause of action would not conform to the aims of Congress in the Animal Welfare Act.

CASE LAW

Federal Case Law –
International Primate Protection League v IBRI (1986).
Private individuals and organizations brought action seeking to be named guardians of medical research animals seized from a medical research organization. Among its holdings, the court held that the Animal Welfare Act did not confer a private right of action. Therefore, private individuals were only entitled to bring AWA suits against the government, not third parties.
Read the case

[top]

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES

Ten Lessons Our Constitutional Experience Can Teach Us About the Puzzle of Animal Rights: The Work of Steven M. Wise
Laurence H. Tribe,
7 Animal L. 1 (2001.)
Read the Article (pdf)

Report of the Committee on Legal Issues Pertaining to Animals of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Regarding its Recommendation to Amend the Animal Welfare Act
Read the report

At the Intersection of Constitutional Standing, Congressional Citizen-Suits, and the Humane Treatment of Animals: Proposals to Strengthen the Animal Welfare Act
Joshua E. Gardner
68 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 330 (2000)
Read the article (530 KB pdf)

Standing for Animals
Cass R. Sunstein
UCLA Law Review 2000
Read the article (pdf)

Should Animals Have Standing? A Review of Standing Under the Animal Welfare Act
Joseph Mendelson, III
24:4 B.C. ENVTL. AFF. L. REV. 795 (1997).
Read the article (pdf)

[top]