United States v. Hughes: For Purposes Of The Lacey Act Circuit Split, The Eighth Circuit Hunts Down The Proper Definition of Market Value
Loading...
Authors
Blazek, Paul James
Issue Date
2017-06
Volume
50
Issue
3
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|Enacted in 1900, the Lacey Act enlarged the powers of the Department of Agriculture by prohibiting the sale or receipt of wild game killed in violation of any law and subsequently transported through interstate commerce. In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit extended the reach of the Lacey Act and recognized the mere sale of hunting guide services as the virtual sale of the wild game itself. However, in 1986, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directly disagreed with the Fifth Circuit and held that the sale of hunting guide services does not equate to the sale of wild game for purposes of the Lacey Act. Congress responded in 1988 by adding language to the Lacey Act and made it unequivocally clear that the sale of hunting guide services for consideration was the sale of wild game. With one aspect of the Lacey Act resolved by Congress, a circuit split still persists regarding how to interpret the term market value found in the Lacey Act, which is impactful because the market value of the wild game determines the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor violation under the Lacey Act...
Description
Citation
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law