Congressional Authority to Regulate Intra-Territory Cockfighting Before the Supreme Court
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2012. Mr. Heelan represents federal personnel across the Executive Branch, including career senior executives, law enforcement officers, foreign service officers, intelligence officers, and agencies in matters of federal personnel and employment law.
Whether Congress can prohibit intra-territory cockfighting in Puerto Rico is an issue now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Puerto Rico filed a brief in support of the petition asking the Court to decide the issue, and this month the Court began circulating the petition for its consideration.
In 1952, Congress accepted Puerto Rico’s constitution, granting the island territory a measure of autonomy and relinquishing federal control over local affairs. According to the petitioner’s brief in Ortiz-Díaz v. United States, one of the ways Puerto Rico has exercised its autonomy is through the legalization and regulation of the sport of cockfighting. Today, Puerto Rican law proclaims cockfighting to be a “cultural right of all Puerto Ricans.”
When Congress enacted the Animal Welfare Act in 1966 under its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, Congress inherently agreed that cockfighting in Puerto Rico was a local issue because the Act did not punish intrastate or intra-territory cockfighting. Rather, cockfighting only violated the Act “if the person knew that any bird in the fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of participation in the fighting venture.”
Things changed in 2018 when Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act to criminalize cockfighting in all States and territories, including those jurisdictions where it was allowed under local law. Because cockfighting was legal under Puerto Rican law, the 2018 amendments effectively made cockfighting illegal, regardless of whether the bird was bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce.
According to the petitioner’s brief, “news of [the law’s] passage dropped like a bombshell,” and Puerto Rican citizens and politicians showed “vociferous solidarity” against the amendment, “which wiped out centuries of local tradition instantly.”
In 2019, various individuals and organizations involved in cockfighting filed suit in the District of Puerto Rico challenging the constitutionality of the amendment. Among the plaintiffs was Ángel Manuel Ortiz-Díaz, the owner of two cockfighting venues and a breeder and owner of more than 200 gamecocks. In District Court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Multiple amici filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs, including the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, the Senate of Puerto Rico, the Government of Puerto Rico, and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico.
The District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Congress “has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate commerce with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” and that the Animal Welfare Act amendment was a proper use of that authority because cockfighting has “a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision.
Multiple plaintiffs, including Ortiz-Díaz, subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to decide the issue of whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate
Puerto Rico’s intra-territory cockfighting industry. Many of the amici from the district court proceedings have filed amicus briefs in support of the petition.
In support of their arguments, petitioners assert that when Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act, it made no effort— through legislative findings, public hearings, or otherwise—to show that cockfighting on the island of Puerto Rico affected interstate commerce in any way. They argue that the First Circuit’s decision “blows past the Commerce Clause’s “outer limits,” and ask the Supreme Court to agree that because Puerto Rico’s cockfighting industry does not “substantially affect interstate commerce,” the issue is one for Puerto Rico – not Congress – to decide.
The U.S. Department of Justice opposes the petition, which was first circulated last week for the Supreme Court to consider.
You can read the full petition for a writ of certiorari in opinion in Ortiz-Díaz v. United States here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1735/181528/20210611171204029_PR%20Cert%20Petition.pdf
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.