Opinion ID: 4266372
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allowing next-friend standing for animals

Text: would violate the public policy behind next- friend standing. In addition to its historical limits, next-friend standing is narrowly tailored in light of the public policy concerns associated with expanding the doctrine. Next-friend standing “is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. “Indeed, if there were no restriction on ‘next friend’ standing in federal courts, the litigant asserting only a 28 NARUTO V. SLATER generalized interest in constitutional governance could circumvent the jurisdictional limits of Art. III simply by assuming the mantle of ‘next friend.’” Id. at 164. The specific requirements to become a next friend are intended to keep “intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves next friends” out of the courts. Id. at 164 (quoting Houston, 273 F. at 916). Moreover, as Chief Justice Rehnquist (writing as the sole justice for the Supreme Court on a stay of execution) similarly noted: “however worthy and high minded the motives of ‘next friends’ may be, they inevitably run the risk of making the actual defendant a pawn to be manipulated on a chessboard larger than his own case.” Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 1312 (1979). Animal-next-friend standing is particularly susceptible to abuse. Allowing next-friend standing on behalf of animals allows lawyers (as in Cetacean) and various interest groups (as here) to bring suit on behalf of those animals or objects with no means or manner to ensure the animals’ interests are truly being expressed or advanced. Such a change would fundamentally alter the litigation landscape. Institutional actors could simply claim some form of relationship to the animal or object to obtain standing and use it to advance their own institutional goals with no means to curtail those actions. We have no idea whether animals or objects wish to own copyrights or open bank accounts to hold their royalties from sales of pictures. To some extent, as humans, we have a general understanding of the similar interests of other humans.5 In the habeas corpus context, we presume other 5 I intentionally do not refer to the human-controlled entities such as corporations or ships, because those entities never have next-friend standing. They have corporate officers or owners to advance their claims. Indeed, a shareholder, who would likely meet the next-friend standing NARUTO V. SLATER 29 humans desire liberty. Similarly, in actions on behalf of infants, for example, we presume the infant would want to retain ownership of the property she inherited. But the interests of animals? We are really asking what another species desires. Do animals want to own property, such as copyrights? Are animals willing to assume the duties associated with the rights PETA seems to be advancing on their behalf?6 Animal-next-friend standing is materially different from a competent person representing an incompetent person. We have millennia of experience understanding the interests and desire of humankind. This is not necessarily true for animals. Because the “real party in interest” can actually never credibly articulate its interests or goals, next-friend standing for animals is left at the mercy of the institutional actor to advance its own interests, which it imputes to the animal or object with no accountability. This literally creates an avenue for what Chief Justice Rehnquist feared: making the actual party in interest a “pawn to be requirements, generally cannot even bring a suit on behalf of the corporation. See e.g., Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd., 493 U.S. 331, 336 (1990) (holding that “generally . . . shareholders [are prohibited] from initiating actions to enforce the rights of the corporation”). 6 Participation in society brings rights and corresponding duties. The right to own property is not free from duties. One must pay taxes on profits from a royalty agreement for use of a copyrighted image. Are animals capable of shouldering the burden of paying taxes? Similarly, all people have a duty to obey the law and, for example, not commit intentional torts. Should animals liable for intentional torts as well? The concept of expanding actual property rights—and rights broadly—to animals necessitates resolving what duties also come with those rights and, because animals cannot communicate in our language, who stands in their shoes? 30 NARUTO V. SLATER manipulated on a chessboard larger than his own case.” Lenhard, 443 U.S. at 1312. II. The Majority opinion. Although the Majority opinion recognizes these principles, it ignores them. The Majority opinion states that animals cannot have next-friend standing, but it nevertheless determines that, because Naruto has an Article III injury and he is “adequately protected,” the Majority may proceed to determine the merits of Naruto’s statutory standing claim under the Copyright Act. Maj. Op. at 9–15. In order to get there, the Majority concludes that next-friend standing is nonjurisdictional: “[W]e must proceed to the merits because Naruto’s lack of a next friend does not destroy his standing to sue, as having a ‘case or controversy’ under Article III of the Constitution,” and concludes that “Naruto’s Article III standing under Cetacean is not dependent on PETA’s sufficiency as a guardian or ‘next friend.’” Maj. Op. at 10, 11. I admit that the basis for the Majority’s conclusion is primarily grounded in its reading of Cetacean, in which a “self-appointed attorney” brought a suit on behalf of the world’s cetaceans. 386 F.3d at 1171–72. Cetacean concluded that animals may have an Article III injury—but, notably, did not examine whether next-friend standing was present. Given this analysis, the Majority concludes that, because the Cetacean panel allowed the case to go forward, it implicitly held that next-friend standing is nonjurisdictional. Maj. Op. at 11. The Majority’s conclusion on the first point—animals can never have next-friend standing—is correct7 and should end 7 As such, I concur in the Majority’s opinion to that extent. NARUTO V. SLATER 31 our inquiry. See infra. On the other hand, the second conclusion (that next-friend standing is nonjurisdictional) is not supportable. This conclusion is incorrect and the consequences associated with the Majority’s holding are avoidable, if we follow precedent. III. The Majority’s conclusion that next-friend standing is nonjurisdictional is legally unsupportable. A. The Majority’s second conclusion violates Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Precedent. Both the United States Supreme Court and our Circuit have held next-friend standing is jurisdictional. In Whitmore, the petitioner brought suit on behalf of another death-row prisoner, Ronald Simmons. 495 U.S. at 152–54. Whitmore asserted both third-party standing and next-friend standing to justify the suit. Id. at 153–54. The Supreme Court held that Whitmore failed both standing tests and, ultimately held that “Jonas Whitmore lacks standing to proceed in this Court, and the writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” Id. at 166 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court also clearly held that any purported next friend bears the burden “clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164 (emphasis added) (citing Mo. Pub. Def. Comm’n ex rel. Smith v. Armontrout, 812 F.2d 1050, 1053 (8th Cir. 1987); Grouseclose ex rel. Harries v. Dutton, 594 F. Supp. 949, 952 (M.D. Tenn. 1984)); see also Demosthenes v. Baal, 495 U.S. 731, 737 (1990) (holding that “federal courts must make certain that an adequate basis exists for the exercise of federal power” and dismissing the suit for failure to demonstrate next-friend standing). 32 NARUTO V. SLATER We have also held that next-friend standing is jurisdictional. In Coalition, a coalition of clergy, lawyers, and professors brought suit on behalf of the prisoners detained in Guantanamo, Cuba. 310 F.3d at 1156. The district court held that the Coalition did not have standing and, even if they did, no federal district court—including itself—could have jurisdiction over such a suit. Id. On appeal, we agreed that the Coalition could not establish next-friend standing. Id. However, we noted that “[t]he question before us is not the scope of the rights and privileges of the detainees themselves under either our Constitution or other international laws or agreements.” Id. at 1164. Rather, we “consider[ed] only the rights of the members of the Coalition to assert standing on behalf of the detainees and to seek habeas review of their detention.” Id. at 1165 (emphasis added). We then dismissed the suit and vacated the district court’s other holding that no court, or itself, may entertain a habeas action on behalf of a detainee held in Guantanamo, Cuba. Id. Additional Circuit precedent stands for the same proposition. See Massie, 244 F.3d at 1199 (affirming the district court’s conclusion that a litigant seeking a stay of execution on behalf of another person “lacked standing” as a next friend under Whitmore).8 8 The Majority argues that I err by using next-friend cases to conclude that we lack jurisdiction in this case. Maj. Op. at 11–12 n.5. But, nextfriend standing is the only basis for jurisdiction PETA has alleged. Compl. at 3 (stating PETA “b[rought] this action on behalf of, and as next friend[] to, Naruto”). Both the Majority and I agree that PETA does not have nextfriend standing and that animals can never have next-friend standing. This should end our inquiry. Further, as a general rule, the proponent of a case must advance its own injury. Warth, 422 U.S. at 499. Next-friend standing is an exception to this rule. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 161–63. Naruto did not bring his own claim, PETA does not assert its own injury, and both the Majority and I agree PETA cannot be Naruto’s next friend. There are no other jurisdictional bases on which to rest our authority to resolve this case. NARUTO V. SLATER 33 B. Standing must be jurisdictional because of its preclusive effect. Judgments are preclusive. See, e.g., Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” (citations omitted)). If the putative next friend is not the appropriate entity, but the case is allowed to go forward, an improper representative can create preclusive precedent that, forever, bars the real party in interest. This preclusive effect alone requires that the question of next-friend standing be decided before the merits question and, if there is no next-friend standing, the case must be dismissed so the proper party may bring the case if she so chooses. C. Cetacean did not impliedly overrule Coalition or Whitmore.9 The Majority’s conclusion that Cetacean somehow makes next-friend standing nonjurisdictional tortures the case and legal reasoning to reach such a conclusion. First, both Whitmore and Coalition were decided before Cetacean. 9 The Majority accuses me of “pretend[ing] Cetacean does not exist, or that it states something other, or milder, or more ambiguous on whether cetaceans have Article III standing” and arguing for a “blanket exclusion of animals from Article III jurisdiction.” Maj. Op. at 11–12 n.5, 13 n.6. My conclusion does not “pretend Cetacean does not exist”; it simply requires Cetacean be applied within the legal framework that governs cases where a plaintiff’s claims are brought by someone else. Such claims may only be advanced by a next friend and, if one is not available or legally possible, those claims cannot be redressed. As I demonstrate in this section, Cetacean does not hold to the contrary. 34 NARUTO V. SLATER Accordingly, those binding cases, which directly answer the question of whether next-friend standing is jurisdictional, were binding on the Cetacean panel as well. Second, Cetacean is silent on next-friend standing. Indeed, even the briefing did not raise the issue. Rather, the Cetacean court seemed to conclude that animals may have Article III standing,10 and then examined the statutory standing questions before it. 386 F.3d at 1174–79. The Cetacean court did not (though it most certainly should have) examine whether it was appropriate for a “self-appointed attorney” to bring a case on behalf of the “Cetacean Community” and articulate “their” interests. Id. at 1171–72. There can be no reasonable argument that the lawyer in Cetacean spoke to, and received instructions from his client, the “Cetacean Community.” Rather, he functioned as a purported next friend, arguing that certain Navy sonar technology injured the members of the “Cetacean Community.” Id. Third, it is simply incorrect to conclude that an implied holding from a case that did not even address the question—in any form—somehow overrules explicit prior United States Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. “[U]nstated assumptions on non-litigated issues are not precedential holdings binding future decisions.” Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd., 764 F.2d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that panels are bound by “prior decision[s],” but “the term ‘decision,’ however, encompasses only those issues that are raised or discussed” (citations 10 Although binding precedent, I agree with the Majority that granting Article III standing to animals was an incorrect conclusion. NARUTO V. SLATER 35 omitted)). Indeed, Cetacean itself noted: “‘[W]here a panel confronts an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and resolves it after reasoned consideration in a published opinion, that ruling becomes the law of the circuit, regardless of whether doing so is necessary in some strict logical sense.’” Cetacean, 386 F.3d at 1173 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 914 (9th Cir. 2001) (Kozinski, J., concurring)); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630–31 (1993) (refusing to follow prior cases where the issue had not been “squarely addressed”). Rather, the appropriate reading of Cetacean, because a three-judge panel cannot overrule a prior panel, see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), is that the Cetacean panel (1) ought not have reached the question it did; and (2) the fact that it seemed to conclude that an animal may have Article III standing does not remove the appropriate standing question that determines if the next friend may bring the action at all. It is simply unsupportable to conclude that a panel that did not address an issue somehow overrules prior binding decisions that did address the issue. Fourth, the simple fact that Cetacean found that animals could have an Article III injury does not, automatically, create some form of right for third-parties to advance those claims (or, make next-friend standing nonjurisdictional and, as the Majority holds, simply inapplicable)! There are a multitude of Article III injuries that occur regularly, which people choose not to pursue. Because the individual with the injury opts not to pursue the claim does not somehow make the injury “public domain,” so any random entity may bring the claim. Next-friend standing serves as a bar to such meddling, and Cetacean did not impliedly eviscerate that conclusion. 36 NARUTO V. SLATER Not only did Cetacean not address animal next-friend standing, but no court has ever done so. See Mount Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1448 n.13 (9th Cir. 1992) (“No party has mentioned and, notwithstanding our normal rules, we do not consider, the standing of the firstnamed party [Mount Graham Red Squirrel] to bring this action.”); Palila v. Hawaii Dep’t of Land & Nat. Res., 852 F.2d 1106, 1107 (9th Cir. 1988) (“As an endangered species . . . , the bird . . . also has legal status and wings its way into federal court as a plaintiff in its own right.” (emphasis added)), abrogated in part by, Cetacean, 386 F.3d at 1173 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Palila IV’s statements [regarding standing] are nonbinding dicta.”); Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc. v. New England Aquarium, 836 F. Supp. 45, 49–50 (D. Mass. 1993) (finding named dolphin, Kama, lacked standing because “[t]he MMPA does not authorize suits brought by animals,” and addressing the fact that Rule 17(b) would hold that animals lack “capacity” to be sued because they are property of their owners, concluding that “the MMPA and the operation of F.R.Civ.P. 17(b) indicate that Kama the dolphin lacks standing to maintain this action as a matter of law,” and allowing “the removal of Kama’s name from the caption of [the] case”); Hawaiian Crow (‘Alala) v. Lujan, 906 F.Supp. 549, 551–52 (D. Haw. 1991) (finding that in Northern Spotted Owl, Palila, and Mount Graham Red Squirrel, no party had challenged the named standing of the animal itself and the case had other parties in the litigation and ultimately concluding that “the cited cases do not directly support plaintiffs’ position here” and concluding that “the plain language of Rule 17(c) and section 1540(g) [did] not authorize the ‘Alala to sue” because it was “clearly neither a ‘person’ as defined in section 1532(13), nor an infant or incompetent person under Rule 17(c)”); Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan, 758 F. Supp. 621 NARUTO V. SLATER 37 (W.D. Wash. 1991) (failing to address standing for named first-party); Northern Spotted Owl v. Hodel, 716 F. Supp 479 (W.D. Wash. 1988) (failing to address standing for named first-party). D. The Majority’s reliance on both Rule 17 and cases discussing “adequate protection” in the context of Rule 17 are simply inapplicable. There is a crucial distinction between the cases cited by the Majority for the proposition that the only requirement for next friend suits is to ensure the “[incompetent parties] are adequately protected,” Maj. Op. at 10 (quotation marks omitted and alterations in original), and the facts of this case and next-friend standing broadly. Each case cited is an example of an incompetent person bringing suit on his own behalf or such a person being sued by another party. I list the cases cited by the Majority to emphasize: • Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Lawrence Krain appeals the dismissal with prejudice of eight lawsuits he filed, in pro se, in the district court.” (emphasis added)). • United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 797 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The United States filed a complaint against Starr . . . to establish just compensation for 30.64 acres of Starr’s land taken by the government . . . .” (emphasis added)). • Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Plaintiff-Appellant Jason 38 NARUTO V. SLATER Harris, an Arizona state prisoner, filed pro se a lawsuit in state court that was subsequently removed . . . .” (emphasis added)). • Roberts v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 256 F.2d 35, 37, 39 (5th Cir. 1958) (finding where “Ohio Casualty Insurance Company . . . filed suit to set aside a ruling . . . against the claimants—the children and their grandmother,” and children had not been represented by a guardian ad litem, the lower judgment granting relief to the plaintiff must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings (emphasis added)). • Westcott v. U.S. Fid. Guar. Co., 158 F.2d 20, 21 (4th Cir. 1946) (“The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company . . . brought a civil action . . . seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that it was not liable on a public liability policy . . . . The defendants in the civil action . . . were the insured, . . . George Mann, a minor.” (emphasis added)). Quite simply, there is no Article III jurisdiction question in any of these cases. Of course, the court would ensure such incompetent persons were adequately represented. The parties sought either redress in court as plaintiffs (but were not competent, and thus needed to be protected), or were pulled into court as defendants (and, thus, the court was required to ensure they were protected). NARUTO V. SLATER 39 These circumstances do not exist here. Our question is whether a third-party (PETA) has next-friend standing—such that it can invoke the authority of this court—to stand in Naruto’s shoes and advance his claims. It is not a question of whether Naruto was properly protected or was brought into this litigation as a defendant. Unlike the cases cited, Naruto (1) did not file this case himself; and (2) is not a defendant. PETA and Dr. Engelhardt initiated this suit on Naruto’s behalf. As such, the cases cited by the Majority are simply inapplicable. IV. Conclusion The question of PETA’s next-friend standing was squarely before our panel. It was briefed and argued. By both concluding that next-friend standing is nonjurisdictional and reaching the merits of the Copyright Act question, the Majority allows PETA (with no injury or relationship to the real party in interest) to sue on Naruto’s behalf, because it obtained legal counsel to allegedly represent Naruto. I cannot support this conclusion.11 11 Indeed, this case is a prime example of the abuse the Majority opinion would now allow. In 2011, Slater (a photographer) went to the Tangkoko Reserve in Indonesia and setup a camera. Naruto, a crested macaque, pushed the shutter. Slater and Wildlife Personalities subsequently included the photographs in a book published by Blurb. In 2015, PETA—with no evidence it has any relationship whatsoever to Naruto—brought the instant suit claiming that Slater, Wildlife Personalities, and Blurb had violated Naruto’s rights under the Copyright Act. PETA alleged that it “ha[d] a genuine concern for Naruto’s wellbeing and [was] dedicated to pursing his best interests in this litigation” and that it “ha[d] the financial and operational resources and the professional expertise to administer and protect Naruto’s copyright in the Monkey Selfies.” Compl. at 4. PETA sought, inter alia, a court order 40 NARUTO V. SLATER “[p]ermitting [PETA] to administer and protect Naruto’s authorship of and copyright in the Monkey Selfies.” Id. at 10. PETA lost at the district court and appealed. When Dr. Engelhardt moved to be dismissed from the case, PETA twice affirmatively stated it would “fulfill the duties of a next friend.” Notice of Withdrawal of Next Friend Antje Engelhardt (May 4, 2016); see also Motion to Correct Caption (May 10, 2016) (“PETA shall remain responsible for maintaining this litigation and fulfilling the duties of a [n]ext [f]riend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c).” (emphasis added)). However, PETA quickly changed its tune after oral argument. On September 11, 2017, PETA and Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal and vacate the lower court’s judgment. Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Vacate the Judgment (Sept. 11, 2017). But, unlike a normal settlement, the purported plaintiff, Naruto, was not a party. “Dismissal with vacatur is just and proper where, as here, the Plaintiff [Naruto] is not a party to the settlement.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). Rather, his purported next friend, PETA, settled its own claims: “the settlement resolves all disputes arising out of this litigation as between PETA and Defendants.” Id. (emphasis added). It remains a mystery to me what “claims” PETA (a non-party) could settle. Nevertheless, even though PETA only settled its own claims, it maintained that “the settlement also renders moot the appeal filed on behalf of the Plaintiff Naruto.” Id. Indeed, PETA went so far as to claim “[t]here is thus no longer any live case or controversy before this Court.” Id. at 3. Though it had previously attested it would “fulfill[] the duties of a next friend,” PETA forgot its self-appointed role. “A ‘next friend’ does not [itself] become a party to the . . . action in which [it] participates, but simply pursues the cause on behalf of [the party in interest].” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163 (emphasis added). Whatever PETA did or did not do for Naruto (it only made representations to this court regarding what it obtained), PETA made sure to protect itself and with the Joint Motion sought to manipulate this court to avoid further negative precedent contrary to its institutional objectives. PETA cleverly argues that, because Naruto is not a party to the settlement and Defendants have maintained that PETA does not have next-friend standing, Naruto should not be bound by judgments entered because of PETA’s actions. But, clever arguments NARUTO V. SLATER 41 hardly conceal what is really occurring and the flip by PETA is quite surprising. One day, PETA maintains it will advance Naruto’s interests, the next it maintains that Naruto cannot be bound by PETA’s actions. It is clear: PETA’s real motivation in this case was to advance its own interests, not Naruto’s. PETA began this case purportedly seeking not only an injunction, but also a judgment “[d]eclaring Naruto to be the author and copyright owner of the Monkey Selfies with all attendant rights and privileges under law” and disgorgement. Compl. at 9–10. After oral argument, none of those objectives are, apparently, worth pursuing. Rather, when it came down to a possible negative, precedential ruling from the panel, PETA quickly sought to protect the institution, not the claimed real party in interest. PETA used Naruto as a “pawn to be manipulated on a chessboard larger than his own case.” Lenhard, 443 U.S. at 1312 (Rehnquist, J., writing for the full Supreme Court). Unfortunately, PETA’s actions could be the new normal under today’s holding.