Northern District of California dismissed a constitutional challenge to San Francisco’s ban on the sale of fur products after repeated attempts from The International Fur Trade Federation to amend their complaint.
This week the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed a constitutional challenge to San Francisco’s ban on the sale of
fur products after repeated attempts from The International Fur Trade
Federation to amend their complaint. The International Fur Trade Federation
filed its lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco in January
2020. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Humane Society of the United
States intervened in the lawsuit, to defend the ordinance’s
constitutionality and preserve San Francisco’s right to ban fur.
Spearheaded by San Francisco Supervisor Katy Tang, the fur ban was
unanimously approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2018 and
went into effect on Jan. 1, 2019 — while allowing retailers until the end of
2019 to sell off existing inventory. San Francisco’s ban built on the
successes of West Hollywood and Berkeley passing similar legislation, and
paved the way for Los Angeles and, finally, the state of California, to pass
similar humane legislation in 2019. Given the wide array of faux fur
products and similar alternatives available to the fashion industry, the San
Francisco ordinance was aimed at preventing animal cruelty and environmental
impacts associated with fur production by banning fur sales in the City.
More than a year after the ordinance took effect, the International Fur
Trade Federation responded by filing a lawsuit which sought to strike it
down as unconstitutional. The court disagreed, and issued a decision that
reinforced its earlier finding that the Commerce Clause does not preclude
San Francisco from ridding its marketplace of cruel fur products and allows
for enforcement of the ban against both local retailers and online retailers
who have a physical location in the city.
“The judge’s decision confirms the constitutional right of San Francisco to
implement the city’s fur ban, which will also support efforts to enact
similar legislation across the country,” said Animal Legal Defense Fund
Executive Director Stephen Wells. “We will continue to defend challenges to
fur bans and protect advocates’ ability to pass animal protection laws on
local, state, and national levels.”
Animal fur — from animals like foxes, minks, raccoon dogs, and many others —
is produced under inhumane conditions to maintain the integrity of the skin.
Animals are kept in small, filthy cages — typically stacked on top of one
another, with waste falling onto the occupant below. Unable to engage in any
of their natural behaviors, animals on fur farms routinely resort to
self-mutilation, obsessive pacing, and infanticide before being suffocated,
gassed, poisoned, or electrocuted. In anal or vaginal electrocution,
electrodes are attached to the animal’s face and genitals to induce a heart
attack. Animals are commonly skinned alive with no painkillers while fully
conscious.
Return to: Litigation