(CN) — A Ninth Circuit panel found Wednesday that falconers in California have standing to challenge conditions imposed on licenses to practice that they say force them to give up their Fourth Amendment rights.
The American Falcon Conservancy and falconers claim in their 2018 complaint that they’ve faced unannounced and warrantless inspections of their property and records. They must agree to these inspections to get their falconry license, which they called an unconstitutional condition and a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
A federal judge dismissed their claims in 2022, finding they lacked standing because they couldn’t show they’d ever been subjected to the inspections.
But a three-judge appeals panel reversed the dismissal on their claims against the the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Donald Trump appointee, said that the government can’t force someone to forego a constitutional right to receive a discretionary benefit under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
Falconers in California must renew their licenses each year. Under federal and state requirements, they also must consent to unannounced visits by state fish and wildlife officials who can enter their facilities and look at their records.
“The question presented here is whether simply agreeing to submit to those inspections, in the absence of an actual inspection, amounts to the relinquishment of Fourth Amendment rights. We conclude that it does,” Forrest wrote for the panel. “By successfully applying for a falconry license, the falconers certify that they will forego a claim to Fourth Amendment protections. An inspection may not occur or, if it does, it may not violate the Fourth Amendment because it is reasonable. But the idea that the falconers surrender nothing unless and until an unlawful inspection occurs — that California extracts a blanket waiver that is, in fact, entirely superfluous — defies logic. Rather, we take the regulation to mean what it says, and agreeing to unannounced, warrantless inspections without any consideration of the reasonableness of such inspections implicates Fourth Amendment rights.”
That meant the falconers and conservancy could show an injury — a forced choice. That, and because the issue was ripe for consideration, led the panel to reverse the lower court’s ruling to dismiss for lack of standing — although whether the injury amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment is up to the lower court to decide on remand.
While the claim against the state of California was ripe for consideration, the one against the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife was not since the federal agency has delegated the authority to license falconers to the state of California. A long chain of events would have to occur before falconers could show an impact linked to the federal fish and wildlife department, which makes any injury to them stemming from the federal agency too hypothetical, the panel held.
The falconers also failed to convince the appeals panel that the unannounced inspections in and of themselves violated their Fourth Amendment right. Forrest wrote the conservancy and falconers didn’t provide any facts about how often such inspections occurred. Instead, they mainly focused on the fact that the regulation exists that allows the inspections.
U.S. Circuit Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr., a Joe Biden appointee, joined Forrest’s opinion. U.S. Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas, a Bill Clinton appointee, dissented in part, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case at all because they couldn’t show they’d ever been subjected to any inspection.
Individual plaintiffs Eric Ariyoshi, Scott Timmons, and Peter Stavrianoudakis live in California and have been licensed falconers for decades. The conservancy has about 100 members nationwide.