United States

Newsome v. Erwin

Summary:

Plaintiff brought § 1983 action against county sheriff and others alleging that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they shot and killed his pet lioness.

U.S. v. Lopez (Abridged for Purposes of Eagle Topic Area)

Summary:

Laws governing intrastate activities will be upheld if they substantially affect interstate commerce.  Under the Eagle Act, the power to regulate eagles has been summarily upheld as a valid exercise of commerce power, as it protects the eagle as a species by preventing the creation of a legal commercial market for the animal.  For further discussion of the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion.

U.S. v. Hugs

Summary:

Defendants shot and sold bald eagles to undercover officers posing as big game hunters in Montana.  On appeal, the court denied their claims against the permit system, finding that they lacked standing to challenge the permit system where they failed to apply for permits.  With regard to a facial challenge to the statute, the court held that the BGEPA passed the RFRA test, where the government asserted a compelling interest that was effectuated in the least restrictive means.  For further discussion on commerce in eagle parts, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

United States v. Bramble

Summary:

During a search related to a controlled substances violation, undercover agents seized eagle feathers from defendant.  The court held that Congress exercised valid Commerce Clause power in enacting the BGEPA, as the incentive of interstate commerce in eagle parts would threaten eagles to extinction, thus depleting the future commercial potential of activities such as eagle-based tourism and educational research.  For discussion on the Eagle Act and the Commerce Clause, see Detailed Discussion .

FAQs on Emotional Support Animals

Summary: On September 17, 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formally withdrew two key guidance documents that housing providers relied upon to evaluate requests for service and assistance animals. These documents were FHEO Notice 2013-01 ("Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing") and FHEO Notice 2020-01 ("Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act"). According to HUD's memorandum, the withdrawal was part of a deregulatory initiative aimed at reducing compliance burdens and ensuring that guidance does not exceed what federal statutes actually require. The agency stated that the withdrawn guidance "should not be enforced or otherwise relied upon by the Department or stakeholders" and has removed these documents from the HUD.gov website. This Q and A part of this document are for historical purposes only and do not reflect current federal interpretation of federal law.