When Federal and State Laws Collide
We continue with our legal education series. Part 2 discusses a court case in which questions about both state and federal law are raised. This is a fairly common occurrence. As our example, we focus on the ongoing case involving a private zoo in Sequim, WA.
Animal Legal Defense Fund vs. Olympic Game Farm In 2018, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) sued a private zoo in Sequim in federal court for creating a public nuisance by housing and confining endangered species. ALDF accused the Olympic Game Farm (OGF) of harm and harassment of gray wolves, lions, tigers, bears and Canadian lynx.
ALDF accused OGF of violating both the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the state’s own version of the ESA. ALDF also sued the private zoo for violating Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 16.52.205 (animal cruelty in the first degree). Resolution has lagged due to a judicial shortage in the Western District of Washington (our local federal trial court), a Covid-caused case backlog, and retirement by the judge assigned to the case - and it’s not over yet.
In 2022, the federal court handling the case realized it could not answer the public nuisance issue. Since public nuisance is a state law issue and the federal bench could not find enough information to rule on that part of the lawsuit, it certified its question to the Washington State Supreme Court. Certification is a procedure used by federal courts to resolve cases that contain state law questions that have no controlling precedent. Basically, this means that the Western District cannot interpret an RCW without case law or other guidance from state courts. If there is no state case law on point, the federal court must ask the state court for help, and the state court must create controlling precedent by request. Controlling precedent will be used to resolve similar questions in the future. The question the Western District certified to the state Supreme Court is:
Does a violation of Washington’s wildlife laws, animal cruelty laws, and/or Endangered Species Act establish a claim for public nuisance in the absence of a showing that the conduct was legislatively declared a public nuisance, interferes with the use and enjoyment of property, or is injurious to public health or safety?
In Washington, public nuisance is a type of nuisance that “affects equally the rights of an entire community or neighborhood, although the extent of the damage may be unequal.” RCW 7.48.130 . It requires infringement of property use and enjoyment or threats to public health and safety. The state’s Supreme Court found that simply having endangered species on private land does not create a health or safety issue, nor does it interfere with the public’s property use. ALDF argued and the Court discussed whether wild animals are owned by the citizens within the state, and how private ownership of wild animals may be perceived as interfering with the “use and enjoyment” of the animals. Since this argument would expand the definition of public nuisance in Washington, the Court rejected this position. Our Supreme Court found that OGF was not a public nuisance, and sent their answer back to the federal court on August 17th. Note that the entire case was paused while the state Supreme Court called for briefs from the parties and ruled on the public nuisance question. Now that the Western District has an answer to its public nuisance question, it can proceed with its analysis of whether OGF has violated the federal ESA.
While ALDF has lost on the nuisance question under state law, it still may prevail on the ESA question under federal law. We will watch for that opinion.
The case is Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, 18-cv-06025, W.D. WA.