A federal judge has snapped back at a California ban on the sales of alligator products, ruling that the California law cannot be enforced while the courts sort out the arguments of plaintiffs who oppose the ban.
Chief District Judge Kimberly Mueller found that California’s ban on such crocodile products likely runs afoul of federal law during a ruling issued Oct. 13 in California’s Eastern District. The state of Louisiana and firms in Florida, California and Texas that market the products filed suit against the California law over the past year, and Mueller moved this month to consolidate those challenges.
The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission told the Louisiana Record that the latest legal opinion is a step in the right direction.
“We are encouraged by the court’s decision,” Bill Hogan, who chairs the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, told the Record in an email. “We know this is the first step and not the last. But it gives Louisiana’s vital alligator industry the ability to continue operating in California and beyond.”
The plaintiffs in cases filed against California’s ban argue that the California statute is superseded by federal law with respect to American alligators, saltwater crocodiles and Nile crocodiles and that it violates the Constitution’s commerce clause. Mueller found that plaintiffs had a likelihood of success in their litigation relating to interstate commerce issues relative to Nile and saltwater crocodiles.
“It is hereby ordered that defendants, their employees, agents and successors in office are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code Section 653o and 653r in connection with the importation, possession or sale of American alligator bodies, parts or products thereof … until the final disposition of this case,” Mueller said in her decision.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and companies that market alligator products have argued in their litigation that the industry generates resources that help to preserve habitat and maintain healthy alligator populations. California officials, however, contend that banning sales of threatened species will reduce stresses on populations native to North America.
The plaintiffs cite studies co-authored by Dilys Roe, principal researcher for the International Institute for Environment and Development, that report how bans on some wildlife trades reduce resources benefiting local workers and business owners.
“In many cases, sustainable wildlife trade can provide key incentives for local people to actively protect species and the habitat they depend on, leading to population recoveries,” one report co-authored by Roe states. “Most importantly, a singular focus on wildlife trade overlooks the key driver of the emergence of infectious diseases: habitat destruction, largely driven by agricultural expansion and deforestation, and industrial livestock production.”
The federal district court set a Nov. 19 scheduling conference for the parties in the litigation.