Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02225/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anna M. Slavin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2225

___________

Anna M. Slavin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 25, 2005

Filed: April 4, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anna Slavin, who raises gamefowl in Arkansas, brought this civil action

challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act after it was amended in

2002 to prohibit the knowing transportation of birds in interstate or foreign commerce

for purposes of having the birds participate in a fighting venture, regardless whether

the fight would be legal in the state where it was to occur. The district court1

Appellate Case: 04-2225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2005 Entry ID: 1886655 
-2-

dismissed Slavin’s complaint and denied her motions for preliminary injunctive relief

and for permission to amend her complaint. This appeal followed. We affirm.

We agree with the district court that Slavin’s Commerce Clause challenge fails

because by its terms the statute covers only the interstate and foreign movement of

birds. See 7 U.S.C. § 2156(b); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995)

(Congress’s Commerce Clause power extends to, inter alia, regulation of use of

channels of interstate commerce and regulation and protection of instrumentalities of

interstate commerce, or persons or “things” in interstate commerce); cf. United States

v. Stuckey, 255 F.3d 528, 529-30 (8th Cir.) (upholding felon-in-possession statute

under Commerce Clause where it contained express jurisdictional element satisfying

Commerce Clause; statute regulated only those weapons affecting interstate

commerce by being subject of interstate trade), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1011 (2001).

Reading Slavin’s complaint liberally to raise a vagueness challenge, we find

the statute is not unconstitutionally vague because it provides fair warning of what

is proscribed, see Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455

U.S. 489, 503 (1982) (in reviewing business regulation for facial vagueness, whether

law affords fair warning of what is proscribed is principal inquiry), and there is a

requirement that the sales and shipment of gamefowl for purposes of fighting be done

knowingly, see id. at 499 (scienter requirement may mitigate vagueness, especially

with respect to notice of what conduct is proscribed); United States v. Hiland, 909

F.2d 1114, 1127 (8th Cir. 1990) (mens rea requirement of fraudulent intent strips

vagueness argument of merit). We also agree with the district court that Slavin’s

“taking” claim fails. Cf. Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 64-68 (1979) (simple

prohibition of sale of lawfully acquired property does not effect a taking).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary

injunctive relief, see Manion v. Nagin, 255 F.3d 535, 538, 539 (8th Cir. 2001)

(district court has broad discretion when ruling on requests for preliminary injunction,

Appellate Case: 04-2225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2005 Entry ID: 1886655 
-3-

and will be reversed only for clearly erroneous factual determinations, error of law,

or abuse of discretion; affirming denial of preliminary injunction in part because

movant did not show likelihood of success on merits); or in denying leave to amend,

see Weimer v. Amen, 870 F.2d 1400, 1407 (8th Cir. 1989) (district courts may deny

leave to amend if proposed changes would not save complaint).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2225 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2005 Entry ID: 1886655