Ivory Educ. Inst. v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife

Good Law
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 606·28 Cal. App. 5th 975
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 2018B282558California5,256 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Micon, J.

*609 *978 Plaintiff Ivory Education Institute appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent California Department of Fish and Wildlife in this action challenging as unconstitutionally vague on its face a recently enacted statute effectively banning the importation and sale of ivory and rhinoceros horn. We conclude that the statute is not facially vague and therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2015, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 96, which took effect July 1, 2016 as Fish & Game Code section 2022, imposing tough new restrictions on the sale and importation of ivory and rhinoceros horn. 1 The Ivory Education Institute (the Institute) sued the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Department) to block implementation of the law, alleging that it was unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including vagueness, federal preemption, the takings clause, and the commerce clause.

In April 2016, the trial court allowed the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the *979 United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Wildlife Conservation Society to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.