A Murder Most Fowl: United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015), and Incidental Killings Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Authors

Lora Anne Waeckerle, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. God Save the Birds: The History of United States Environmental Protection Legislation and the U.S.–Great Britain Treaty ... B. No Clear Skies Ahead: The Relevant Sections of the MBTA ... C. Walking on Eggshells: The Federal Circuits Disagree on Whether Incidental Killings May Be Sanctioned Under the MBTA ... D. Ruffled Feathers: United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. and the Continued Confusion

III. Analysis: Despite the Fifth Circuit’s Ruling, the MBTA’s Language Has an Expansive Wingspan ... A. The Sky Is the Limit: The MBTA’s Language and Legislative History Support Sanctioning Incidental Taking of Protected Birds … 1. Taking a Different Direction: The MBTA’s Plain Language Supports Misdemeanor Penalties for Incidental Takings ... 2. Under Congress’s Wing: The MBTA’s Legislative History Supports MBTA Penalties for Misdemeanor Incidental Takings ... B. Migrating in the Right Direction: Persuasive Policy Considerations for Sanctioning Incidental Killings … 1. Compliance at 5000 Feet: International Obligations and Department of the Interior’s Regulations ... 2. Not Just Winging It: Extending Violations of the MBTA to Include Incidental Killing Does Not Risk Inappropriate Sanctions

IV. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Lora Anne Waeckerle, A Murder Most Fowl: United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015), and Incidental Killings Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 96 Neb. L. Rev. 742 (2017)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol96/iss3/6