Opinion ID: 76166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Lacey Act

Text: 13 The first issue we address is whether the phrase any foreign law in the Lacey Act includes foreign regulations and other legally binding provisions that have the force and effect of law. The defendants argue that the phrase any foreign law should be read to mean foreign statutes and not foreign regulations or provisions that are legally binding. According to their argument, Resolution 030-95 and Regulation 0008-93 do not fall within the scope of the Lacey Act, because they are not statutes. 13 They rely upon what they consider a distinction by Congress between any law or regulation of any State and any foreign law. 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(A). The defendants argue that by failing to include foreign regulations explicitly, Congress intended that only foreign statutes could serve as the basis for a foreign law Lacey Act violation. 14 In accordance with the plain meaning doctrine, [w]e begin our construction of... [the Lacey Act] where courts should always begin the process of legislative interpretation, and where they often should end it as well, which is with the words of the statutory provision. Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065, 121 S.Ct. 2214, 150 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001); United States v. Gilbert, 198 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir.1999). It is well established that [w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous... [the] judicial inquiry is complete. CBS Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2001) (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) ([C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.). When, however, the language is ambiguous or leads to absurd results, ... [we] may consult the legislative history and discern the true intent of Congress. United States v. Kattan-Kassin, 696 F.2d 893, 895 (11th Cir.1983). 14 15 With this guidance in mind, we examine the language of the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act provides that [i]t is unlawful for any person ... to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce ... any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law. 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(A). The Act defines law as those  laws ... which regulate the taking, possession, importation, exportation, transportation, or sale of fish or wildlife or plants. 16 U.S.C. § 3371(d) (emphasis added). 16 Unfortunately, the statutory definition defines the word law by using the word laws. 15 While the definition is helpful in determining what the law must regulate, it is silent as to whether law is restricted to statutes or includes regulations and other provisions that foreign governments use to promulgate legally binding rules. Thus, we turn first to the common usage or ordinary meaning of the word law to determine its plain meaning. Cf. Consol. Bank, N.A. v. Office of Comptroller of Currency, 118 F.3d 1461, 1464 (11th Cir. 1997) (In the absence of a statutory definition of a term, we look to the common usage of words for their meaning.). [T]o determine the common usage or ordinary meaning of a term, courts often turn to dictionary definitions for guidance. See CBS Inc., 245 F.3d at 1223. 17 Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary provides several definitions of law, including a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority and the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 659 (Frederick C. Mish et al. eds., 10th ed.1996). Under these broad definitions of the word law, the phrase any foreign law incorporates the Honduran decrees and regulations at issue. See United States v. 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir.1989). 18 On the other hand, there are more narrow definitions of the word law that also are commonly used. Black's Law Dictionary provides several definitions of the word law, including one that defines law simply as [a] statute. Black's Law Dictionary 889 (Bryan A. Garner et al. eds., 7th ed.1999). This definition is plausible when the phrase any foreign law is read in conjunction with the rest of § 3372(a)(2)(A). For example, the defendants assert that any foreign law can refer only to foreign statutes, because to read any foreign law to include regulations would render the word regulation in the earlier phrase any law or regulation of any State meaningless. 16 19 While the defendants advocate this interpretation of the statute, it is not the only reasonable one. Another is that Congress intended to punish violations of state laws and state regulations and to punish violations of foreign laws, whatever form those foreign laws may take. The Ninth Circuit, in explaining why it interpreted any foreign law to cover different forms of foreign laws, emphasized how the world's diverse legal systems defy easy definition or categorization. It noted, 20 [B]ecause of the wide range the forms of law may take given the world's many diverse legal and governmental systems, Congress would be hard-pressed to set forth a definition that would adequately encompass all of them.... Thus, if Congress had sought to define any foreign law with any kind of specificity whatsoever, it might have effectively immunized... [conduct] under the Act despite violation of conservation laws of a large portion of the world's regimes that possess systems of law and government that defy easy definition or categorization. 21 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d at 827-28. In other words, the argument is that Congress specifically chose to limit domestic law to statutes and regulations, but specifically chose to use the language any foreign law to cover the wide varieties of laws in foreign countries. 22 The net result is that there are several reasonable ways to interpret the word law in the phrase any foreign law. As a result of this ambiguity, we look beyond the language of the statute to determine legislative intent. We thus now look to the legislative history of the Lacey Act to ascertain Congress's intent. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Thomas, 220 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir.2000). In trying to learn Congressional intent by examining the legislative history of a statute, we look to the purpose the original enactment served, the discussion of statutory meaning in committee reports, the effect of amendments whether accepted or rejected and the remarks in debate preceding passage. Rogers v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 611 F.2d 1074, 1080 (5th Cir.1980). 17 23 The Lacey Act was introduced by Representative John F. Lacey of Iowa in 1900. H.R.Rep. No. 97-276, at 7 (1981) (discussing the enactment of the Lacey Act). Representative Lacey recognized that individual states were unable to protect their wildlife, because their laws did not reach into neighboring states. Id. Thus, he asserted that a federal law was necessary to outlaw the interstate traffic in wildlife illegally taken from their state of origin. 18 Id. By 1981 Congress recognized the need to strengthen the Lacey Act in response to the massive illegal trade in fish, wildlife and plants. 127 Cong. Rec. 17,327 (1981) (remarks of Senator Lincoln Chafee). Congress thus amended the Lacey Act in 1981 to correct ... insufficiencies in the Act and to simplify administration and enforcement. 19 S. Rep. No. 97-123, at 2 (1981), reprinted in 1981 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1748, 1749. 24 Although there are certain parts of the legislative history of the Lacey Act that support the defendants' position to some extent, the legislative history reflects that the [main] thrust of Congress's intention in amending the Act was to expand its scope and enhance its deterrence effect. 20 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d at 828. Indeed, Congress clearly stated that the amendments were meant to strengthen the existing wildlife protection laws and to provide [the government] the tools needed to effectively control the massive illegal trade in fish, wildlife and plants. 127 Cong. Rec. 17,327 (remarks of Senator Chafee); see also 127 Cong. Rec. 26,537 (1981) (remarks of Representative John Breaux). The Senate Report provided that the amendments would allow the Federal Government to provide more adequate support for the full range of State, foreign and Federal laws that protect wildlife. S.Rep. No. 97-123, at 4. The amendments were intended to raise both the civil and criminal penalties of the current laws and target commercial violators and international traffickers. 127 Cong. Rec. 17,328 (remarks of Senator Chafee). By strengthening the penalty provisions of the Lacey Act, Congress intended to give the Federal Government stronger enforcement tools to stop the large-scale importation and taking of fish ... which enjoy protection under other foreign ... laws. Id. at 17,329 (remarks of Senator James Strom Thurmond). 25 Our examination of the legislative history of the Lacey Act leads us to the conclusion that Congress by no means intended to limit the application of the Act by its adoption of the 1981 amendments. The defendants' interpretation is untenable, because it would restrict the application of the Lacey Act unduly and would thwart Congress's stated goal of strengthening the Act by amending it in 1981. See id. at 17,328 (remarks of Senator Chafee). Their narrow interpretation of the phrase any foreign law would prevent the wildlife conservation laws of many countries from serving as the basis for Lacey Act violations and would limit the Act's utility. We therefore conclude that regulations and other such legally binding provisions that foreign governments may promulgate to protect wildlife are encompassed by the phrase any foreign law in the Lacey Act. 21 See United States v. Lee, 937 F.2d 1388, 1391-92 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that a Taiwanese fishing regulation constituted foreign law); 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d at 828 (holding the same). 26 As we have determined that the phrase any foreign law includes nonstatutory provisions such as Resolution 030-95 and Regulation 0008-93, we now turn to the defendants' argument that their convictions were based upon the district court's erroneous interpretation of foreign law.