7 U.S.C. § 1902

Humane methods

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane:(a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or(b) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.(Pub. L. 85–765, § 2, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 862; Pub. L. 95–445, § 5(a), Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1069.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1978—Par. (b). Pub. L. 95–445 inserted “and handling in connection with such slaughtering” at end.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–445 effective one year after Oct. 10, 1978, and nonapplicability during not to exceed additional 18 months in hardship cases, see sec. 7 of Pub. L. 95–445 set out as a note under section 603 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1974–2017 · leading case: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). · cites it 2× “See 7 U. S. C. § 1902 (b); Fla. Stat. § 828.23 (7)(b) (1991); Ordinance 87-40, § 1.”

Frank v. State, 604 P.2d 1068 (Alaska 1979). · cites it 2× “[13] One commentator has suggested that no accommodation which is even "arguably compelled" by the free exercise clause can violate the establishment clause: In attempting to distinguish between situations where accommodating programs to religious needs has been held excessive…”

Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2009). “Nevertheless, in enacting *990 the HMSA of 1978, Congress did not repeal those provisions of the HMSA of 1958 — 7 U.S.C. §§ 1902 (a), 1904(b) — which 1) set forth the specific list of species for purposes of that earlier statute, 2) included the terms “other livestock” and…”

Ass'n Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D'Oies Du Québec v. Becerra, 870 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017). “We have not had the occasion to decide whether poultry should be considered “other livestock” under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, see 7 U.S.C. § 1902 (a), and we need not decide that issue here.”

Merced v. City of Euless, 577 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 2009). “Even though the city’s manager admitted that killing of four-legged animals is not an evil in itself, see 7 U.S.C. § 1902 (b) (describing the slaughter technique used by Merced, severing the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument, as humane), it is still prohibited.”

United States v. Ashley Richards, 755 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2014). “”); Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159 (stating that purpose is to “insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment”); 25 C.”

People v. Voelker, 172 Misc. 2d 564 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1997). “00), and while defendant has failed to set forth, in his moving papers, that he was duly licensed and/or that he properly slaughtered these animals (see generally, Agriculture and Markets Law § 96-d; 1 NYCRR part 245; 7 USC § 1902 ) and/or that he followed the applicable city,…”

Levine v. Conner, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “” 7 U.S.C. § 1902 (a). The terms “other livestock” or “livestock” are not defined in the Act.”

Jones v. Butz, 374 F. Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). “The plaintiffs’ challenge to the Act is directed to sections 2(b), 5, and 6 ( 7 U.S.C. §§ 1902 (b), 1905, and 1906). Section 2 provides: “§ 1902.”

Merced v. City of Euless (5th Cir. 2009). “Even though the city’s manager admitted that killing of four-legged animals is not an evil in itself, see 7 U.S.C. § 1902 (b) (describing the slaughter technique used by Merced, severing the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument, as humane), it is still prohibited.”

Ellen Levine v. Edward T. Schafer (9th Cir. 2009). “Never- theless, in enacting the HMSA of 1978, Congress did not repeal those provisions of the HMSA of 1958 — 7 U.S.C. §§ 1902 (a), 1904(b) — which 1) set forth the specific list of species for purposes of that earlier statute, 2) included the terms “other livestock” and…”

Ex Parte Brent Wayne Just. v. State (Tex. App. 2015). “092(b)(1) is preempted by 7 U.S.C.A. § 1902 (b); and (c) Section 42.”

— 7 U.S.C. § 1902(b) — 1 case

Frank v. State, 604 P.2d 1068 (Alaska 1979). “[13] One commentator has suggested that no accommodation which is even "arguably compelled" by the free exercise clause can violate the establishment clause: In attempting to distinguish between situations where accommodating programs to religious needs has been held excessive…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.