For years, dedicated organizations have brought puppies in need to loving homes in the U.S. But a recent federal court decision upholds a new CDC rule that could effectively halt these vital rescue efforts.
Rescue Groups Import ‘Potcakes’
At the center of the case is a coalition of six nonprofit organizations dedicated to rescuing and finding permanent homes for stray dogs — specifically, a mixed breed from the Caribbean called the American Village Dog or, colloquially, “Potcakes.” These orgs share the common mission of saving street dogs from Caribbean islands that the United States has long recognized as either “rabies-free” or “rabies low-risk.” Collectively, over the past decade, these organizations have placed tens of thousands of rescued Potcakes with adoptive families, the vast majority of whom reside in the United States. The nonprofits rely on networks of volunteers who foster rescued puppies, arrange for their medical care, and coordinate adoptions with American families. As nonprofits, the orgs don’t sell the dogs, but instead request donations to cover the costs of veterinary care and transportation.
The operations of these orgs are highly dependent on the ability to transport young, healthy puppies from rabies-free Caribbean islands to adoptive families in the United States. This process was made possible under longstanding regulations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They allowed puppies from rabies-free countries to enter the U.S. without a minimum age requirement or a rabies vaccination certificate, provided the dog had not been in a high-risk country. The dog nonprofits structured their organizations, foster care networks, and fundraising activities around these rules, which enabled them to save thousands of Potcakes from hardship and early death.
New Rule Threatens Operations
But a year ago, the CDC announced a new regulation, set to take effect on August 1, 2024. It imposed a blanket ban on the importation of any dog under six months of age, regardless of the dog’s vaccination status or country of origin. The nonprofits viewed this as a radical departure from the longstanding regulatory framework and a direct threat to their ability to continue their rescue missions. They claimed the new rule would make it nearly impossible to place Potcakes with American families, as most puppies would be too large to travel in the passenger cabin by six months of age, and cargo travel is either unavailable or unsafe for much of the year. According to the rescue orgs, the new rule would force them to foster dogs for longer periods, strain their resources, increase their costs, and ultimately reduce the number of dogs they could rescue and re-home.
Believing that the CDC’s new regulation was unnecessary, unsupported by evidence, and procedurally defective, the dog nonprofits banded together as joint plaintiffs to sue the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in federal court. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, they challenged the CDC’s authority to impose the new rule and argued that it was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of required rulemaking procedures.
Nonprofits Challenge Federal Dog Ban
The plaintiffs point out that the CDC’s own rulemaking statement admits it has not observed any canine rabies infections among dogs imported from rabies-free or low-risk countries. They contend there is no evidence in the administrative record that importing puppies under six months of age from rabies-free Caribbean islands poses any actual, non-speculative risk of introducing rabies into the country.
The CDC’s justification for the rule is purportedly preventing fraud involving the movement of dogs from high-risk to low-risk or rabies-free countries. But the plaintiffs point out that the CDC has not identified any specific instances of fraud or “dog laundering” involving the rabies-free Caribbean islands that are the focus of the plaintiffs’ work. Thus, the plaintiffs claim the rule is overbroad because it applies a blanket restriction to areas where there is no evidence of a problem. They also argue the CDC failed to consider less drastic or more targeted alternatives, such as applying the age restriction only to countries with documented fraud or rabies risk.
The plaintiffs highlighted that the CDC’s explanations for the rule are internally inconsistent and illogical. For example, the CDC claims the rule will prevent fraud and protect public health, but at the same time, it eliminates the rabies vaccination requirement for dogs from rabies-free countries.
The lead plaintiff, The Bruno Project Rescue, included a sworn statement of its Executive Director, Blake Ulrich. He explained that the CDC’s new regulation requiring imported dogs to be at least six months old will have a devastating impact on the organization’s mission. He said that the rule would force Bruno Project to care for rescued Potcake puppies for at least two additional months, significantly increasing operational costs and straining limited resources. Ulrich noted that most Potcakes are rescued at under two months old and are typically adopted out by four months, when they are still small enough to travel in the passenger cabin of commercial flights; by six months, most are too large for cabin travel, making transportation more difficult, expensive, and, in many cases, impossible due to airline restrictions on cargo travel during much of the year. Older dogs are harder to place with adoptive families, and the increased difficulty in arranging adoptions would likely reduce charitable donations, putting the organization at risk of a “death spiral” where it can no longer sustain its rescue operations. Ulrich emphasized that his organization ensures all dogs are healthy and cleared by veterinarians before travel.
Procedural Violations Alleged
Under the APA, when an agency proposes a new regulation, it must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and allow the public to comment. The final rule adopted must be a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule so that interested parties have fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to comment on the substance of what will become law. The CDC’s proposed rule included a significant exception to the new six-month minimum age requirement, allowing each organization to import up to three dogs younger than six months per year if the dogs have not been in a country at high risk for rabies since birth. This exception would have allowed charitable organizations like the plaintiffs to continue importing a limited number of young, healthy, fully vaccinated puppies from rabies-free or low-risk countries, maintaining the viability of their rescue and adoption operations. But when the CDC published the final rule, it eliminated this exception entirely. That, the plaintiffs argued, makes the rule procedurally defective under the APA.
The CDC relied on its authority under the Public Health Service Act to promulgate the new regulation. The plaintiffs contend that the CDC’s six-month minimum age rule is not an “inspection” measure permitted under the Act, but rather a categorical import ban that falls under stricter requirements. They argue that, unlike inspection measures—which involve examining animals for disease—the rule simply denies entry to all dogs under six months, regardless of health or origin, without any individualized assessment.
The CDC argued that the rule was an inspection measure directly related to identifying and preventing rabies, supported by scientific evidence that serologic titer tests are only reliable at six months. They also argued that the rule aligned with USDA regulations and deters fraud by closing loopholes that allowed importers to evade requirements.
Court Lets Ban Stand
If you’re a dog lover, you might want to brace yourself, because the district court did not side with the rescue groups. It found that the CDC acted within its statutory authority under § 264(a) and that the rule should be considered an “inspection” measure directly related to preventing the spread of rabies, as it facilitates more reliable identification of rabid dogs and verification of documentation.
The court noted that the administrative record contained evidence linking age to rabies risk, the challenges of inspecting younger dogs, and the need to deter fraud and prevent circumvention of import requirements. The court also found that the CDC reasonably balanced public health concerns with the needs of importers by choosing a six-month threshold rather than a more restrictive seven-month standard.
Ultimately, the court held that the CDC provided a reasoned explanation for the change and that the rule was neither arbitrary nor capricious, even if it was somewhat overinclusive, given the serious public health risks posed by the reintroduction of dog rabies.
So, the rule stands, much to the dismay of the rescue groups. Let’s hope that puppy-loving Americans will find a way to keep these struggling nonprofits afloat.
Related Resources:
- Pet Sitting Unleashes Potential Liability (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Is it Legal to Break a Hot Car Window To Rescue an Animal? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Buying a Pet (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
