Search Articles
CINCINNATI (CN) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 6-month-old age requirement for dogs imported into the United States faced little resistance from a Sixth Circuit panel, despite claims that the rule meant to combat the spread of rabies is actually a de facto ban.
Implemented under the so-called “dog rule,” the CDC regulations do not prevent the introduction or spread of rabies in the U.S., according to the hunters’ advocacy group Sportsmen’s Alliance.
Rather, the group argues that the microchip and age requirements — applicable to dogs from all foreign countries, even those known as low-risk for rabies — are fraud detection measures that fall outside the scope of the agency’s authority.
Attorney Michael Jean, in-house litigation counsel for the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, argued Thursday on behalf of the foundation and beagle breeder Frieda Krpan, who is based in Canada.
“These regulations stretch the statute beyond what it can bear and were made to combat a problem that does not exist,” Jean said. “Over 900,000 dogs a year come from these low-risk countries. The introduction of rabies into the United States has never happened.”
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, an appointee of Barack Obama, immediately questioned the foundation’s attorney.
“What about the rabid dog from Egypt that came into the country through Canada?” she asked, referencing a 2019 case.
“That case involved falsified documents,” Jean replied.
“Can’t the CDC do this under the justification of an inspection?” Stranch continued.
“Bans have never been authorized under the inspection doctrine,” the attorney said. “This is an embargo that doe not discern between sound and unsound animals.”
U.S. Circuit Judge John Bush, a Donald Trump appointee, was skeptical of the foundation’s arguments.
“They’re not banning all dogs, though,” he said. “It’s just a time and microchip requirement. Isn’t this just an inspection? A ban means you could never get the product.”
“It is not an inspection under the traditional meaning of the word,” Jean said.
The foundation’s attorney emphasized the statute is related to finding a disease and curing or preventing it from entering the U.S., but cannot be used to support a global ban on the import of dogs.
Attorney Brian Springer from the U.S. Department of Justice argued on behalf of the agency, and laid out the rationale for its shift in policy last year.
Puppies under the age of six months can often exhibit uncoordinated movement — a symptom of rabies — and requiring imported dogs to be slightly older ensures inspectors can know the difference between a puppy and an infected dog, according to Springer.
“This isn’t a big change,” he told the panel. “CDC came up with other ways to make sure dogs aren’t slipping through the cracks.”
“I’m most concerned about the age requirement,” Bush told the attorney. “Why do you need both the microchip and age requirements?”
Springer defended the necessity of each regulation and emphasized that without the six-month cutoff, people would attempt to import high-risk dogs into the U.S. through low-risk countries.
The agency included additional rationales for the age requirement in its brief to the Sixth Circuit.
“The CDC identified challenges in ‘assessing the age of dogs’ before they reach six months, which is important because veterinarians must be able to confirm that a dog was ‘old enough’ when it received the rabies vaccine … [while] older dogs are better equipped to handle stresses like ’long travel times’ and ’temperature fluctuations,’” the CDC said.
Jean disputed the CDC’s point about the uncoordinated movement of puppies during his rebuttal, and told the court that language never appeared in the original draft of the regulation.
“That language only came after notice and comment, and it brings up an entirely different rationale for the regulation,” he said.
Bush was unmoved.
“I don’t see why that matters,” the judge said. “We still look at the merits of the rationale.”
In its brief to the appeals court, Sportsmen’s Alliance said Krpan will likely go out of business if the restrictions continue to be enforced, while hunters will search elsewhere for companions they can begin to train and socialize at a younger age.
U.S. Circuit Judge Chad Readler, another Trump appointee, rounded out the panel.
No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.
Follow @kkoeninger44Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.