IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH CIRCUIT
IPPL
v.
Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc.
United States
799 F.2d 934 (1986)

Legal Brief

Seanna Walker

Date of Case:
Date of this Brief: July 26, 2013

Table of Contents
Facts of CaseIII
The United States Court of Appeals Fourth CircuitIV
History of the Case.....V-VII
Issues.VIII
The Majority Opinion..IX
Conclusion.x

II

FACTS OF CASE
In this case petitioners, individuals and organization seeks guardianship of
animals seized from IBR Institute of behavioral research, Whose Chief was convicted of
state animal cruelty statute violations. The United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, John R. Hargrove, J., dismissed action, and individuals and organizations
appealed.1 The individuals and organizations are appealing to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held
that: (1) individuals and organizations lacked standing to bring action, and (2) Animal
Welfare Act did not confer private cause of action Case discussed in topic: US Animal
Welfare Act.2 The Circuit Judge, Judge Wilkinson is delivering this opinion.

IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc.AnimalLaw.web.22 July

2013.<http://www.animallaw.info/cases/case_details/print.htm>.

Silver Spring Monkeys: The Case that Launched PETA Peta.Web.22 July
2013<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experiementation/the-silverspring-monkeys.aspx>.
III

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit

Circuit Judge
Judge Wilkinson
Judgment Dismissed

IV

History of the Case

The summer of 1981, Alex Pacheco a student and also one of PETAs founders
wanted to gain experience at an institute called, Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR).
IBR was a federally funded laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland. Edward Taub, a man
with no medical training.3 Alex found seventeen monkeys living there being tested,
living in complete filth. These helpless animals were trapped in urine, mold and air
cramped cages. They had no interaction other than being tested. This is animal cruelty.
The monkeys were subjected to debilitating surgeries.2
On September 9, 1981, Sgt. Richard Swain, Montgomery Co. Police Dept. obtained
warrant and seized the seventeen monkeys. Asst. State attorney for Montgomery Co.
filed criminal charges against Taub in Montgomery Co. district court. October 9, 1981
monkeys were transferred to NIH in Poolesville, Maryland. November 1981, Taub was
tried in the district court for Montgomery Co., which on December 2 entered orders of
conviction on six of the seventeen counts and acquittal on the other eleven counts.
Fearing that the court order on custody of the monkeys would partially expire with the
acquittals, PETA acted quickly to prevent the return of any animals to IBR. Along with
the International Primate Protection League, the Animal Law Enforcement Association,
and several name individuals, PETA filed a bill of complaint on December 3 in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The Complaint, in which the plaintiffs purported
to speak for their own and class interests and as next friends of seventeen (17) nonhuman primates, [FN3] alleged that a civil inquiry would show IBR had violated the
Federal Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C 2131 et seq. Naming IBR, NIHS, Swain and

Stunkard as defendants, the plaintiffs asked the equity court to verify these claims, to
designate the plaintiffs as new guardians of the monkeys, and to enjoin all parties from
permitting IBR to regain possession. On December 17, NIH requested removal of the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Within two days, Moved to
dismiss the action because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sueand within two weeks, IH
moved to dismiss the action for improper venue or to transfer the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia for consolidation with Civil Action No. 81-2691,
Humane Society of the United States v. Block, and Civil Action No. 81-2977m Fund for
Animalsv. Malone. The Federal district court in Washington, D.C. dismissed Humane
Society v. Block and Fund for Animals v. Malone. In an April 1982 decision the court
described the enforcement authority of NIH and Department of Agriculture officials as
wholly discretionary and held that given the absence of any express statutory directive
requiring enforcement action where certain standards f car are not met, there is no duty
owed to members of these plaintiff organizations nor can such a duty be implied. Taub
appealed his six District Court convictions to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
where a jury after a new trial returned a verdict against Taub on one count of cruelty to
animals. The Court of Appeals of Maryland then granted a writ of certiorari and in
August 1983 reversed the conviction, holding that Article 27, 59 of the Maryland Code
did not apply to an institution conducting medical Research pursuant to a federal
program. Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 463 A.2d 819 (1983). In January 1985 a federal
magistrate in the District of Maryland recommended that the district court dismiss for
lack of standing the suit against IBR, NIH, and Swain. Three Months later the district
court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate. When the district court

VI

refused in November to set aside the judgment, the plaintiffs appealed to this court. We
affirm. 3

IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc.AnimalLaw.web.22 July

2013.<http://www.animallaw.info/cases/case_details/print.htm>.

FN3. One of the original seventeen monkeys died before the complaint was filed. We
understand that one other monkey has since died and that fifteen animals are now
involved.
VII

Issues
The incident investigation at IBR in Silver Springs, Maryland, resulted in the first
arrest and criminal conviction for animal abuse in a lab. Before this there has been no
laws against experimenting on animals. One of PETAs founders, Alex Pecheco was
working at IBR in the summer of 1981. There he witnessed animal cruelty to seventeen
monkeys. He documented his observations with notes and photographs. Alex and PETA
took issue with the treatment of the monkeys. They saw a need to prosecute the chief of
the IBR lab Mr. Taub. They also saw a need to establish laws against the mistreatment of
laboratory animals and animal testing.4 The issue is whether a group of private
individuals may challenge a medical researchers compliance with federal standards for
the care of laboratory animals. Plaintiffs assert that this case implicates their financial
interests and their non-financial interests.5

Silver Spring Monkeys: The Case that Launched PETA Peta.Web.22 July
2013<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experiementation/the-silverspring-monkeys.aspx>.

IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc.AnimalLaw.web.22 July

2013.<http://www.animallaw.info/cases/case_details/print.htm>.
VIII

The Majority Opinion

In this case we must decide whether a group of private individuals may challenge a
medical researcher's compliance with federal standards for the care of laboratory animals.
Because we find that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring such a lawsuit, we affirm the
judgment of the district court in its dismissal of this action.6 Should we agree that the
plaintiffs have cause to bring these actions it would possibly result in court supervision of
laboratory research. This could hamper the process of medical science in finding cures
for human suffering. The court does not advise this without the direction of congress. We
believe that congress planned for medical research to be progressive and not hampered.
The animal welfare act was granting individuals the right to bring action.6

IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc.AnimalLaw.web.22 July

2013.<http://www.animallaw.info/cases/case_details/print.htm>.

IX

Conclusion
In 1966 the Animal Welfare act was signed into law. It governs the treatment of
animal testing and also the transportation and exhibition of animals by dealers. The
Animal Welfare Act guidelines are accepted as a minimum standard. 7 However, some
state laws contain and express exemption for scientific and medical research.8 Pursuant
to Maryland statute, Article 27, sec. 59 of the Maryland Code Edward Taub the chief of
IBR was convicted on multiple accounts of animal cruelty. Edward Taubs conviction
was overturned because the statute did not apply to scientific research. The statute was
amended in 1984 to include researchers.8 The Animal Welfare Act has no provision for
private individuals to file lawsuits. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no support from any
cases having statutes that do make provisions for private individuals to file lawsuits for
treatment of animals.9 The Plaintiffs standing to sue by virtue of a private cause of
action would not conform to the aims of Congress in the Animal Welfare Act.9 This
court affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Animal Welfare ActGovernment and Professional Resources.Web.26 July

2013<http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federallaws/animal-welfare-act>.
8
INTERNATIONAL PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE, et al., PlaintiffsAppellees, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL
FUND, and National Institutes of Health, Defendants-AppellantsNo.893288.US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.1990.Web.26 July
2013<https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/895/895.F2d.1056.89-3288.html>.
9

IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc.AnimalLaw.web.22 July

2013.<http://www.animallaw.info/cases/case_details/print.htm>.

XI