On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in a lawsuit brought by animal welfare groups regarding permits for SeaWorld’s orcas; the circuit court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case.
The opinion states that the plaintiffs are a group of organizations devoted to animal welfare and individuals who work with marine mammals that sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through the lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought to enforce conditions in permits held by SeaWorld for the capture and display of orcas.
The opinion states that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) bans the capture of certain types of marine mammals including the orca. However, prior to 1994, the MMPA allowed the NMFS to issue Special Exception Permits for the capture of orcas and other marine mammals for specified purposes, such as research and public display. The opinion states that the NMFS determines whether to issue the permits and upon what conditions.
The circuit court notes that most permits, including SeaWorld’s permit, required facilities that publicly display marine mammals to send medical history and necropsy data to the NMFS whenever an animal held under the terms of a permit died. However, the opinion explains that in 1994, Congress amended the MMPA to shift jurisdiction to oversee the conditions of marine mammals in captivity to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
The circuit court states that the litigation initiated after the popular 2013 documentary Blackfish that covered Tilikum, an orca at SeaWorld in Orlando, held pursuant to a pre-1994 permit. When Tilikum became ill in 2016, the plaintiffs asked NMFS whether Tilikum’s medical history and necropsy reports would be available upon the orca’s death under the conditions of SeaWorld’s permit. The opinion states that NMFS did not respond to the plaintiffs until two months after Tilikum’s death on January 6, 2017.
According to the opinion, NMFS responded to the plaintiffs explaining that it interpreted the 1994 amendments as extinguishing its authority to enforce marine mammal permits and transferred jurisdiction to APHIS. The opinion states that the plaintiffs tried to convince the NMFS it had continuing legal authority to enforce pre-1994 permit to no avail, and the plaintiffs thus brought this suit arguing that the NMFS’s policy rests upon an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the MMPA.
At the district court, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion leading to the present appeal. In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision stating the plaintiffs lack standing because the plaintiffs fail to establish that the relief they seek would redress the injury they allegedly suffered.
The plaintiffs are represented by Eubanks & Associates, PLLC.
