## Facts

- New York City enacted local laws in 2015 regulating dog and cat sales by pet shops to address consumer protection, animal welfare, and companion-animal overpopulation.
- The “Sourcing Law” limited pet-shop sales to animals obtained from breeders holding a USDA Class A license under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and meeting “good standing” and inspection-history conditions.
- The “Spay/Neuter Law” required pet shops to sterilize animals before transfer to consumers, subject to narrow health-related exceptions certified by a licensed veterinarian.
- New York Pet Welfare Association, Inc. (a trade association of pet stores and related participants) sued the City and related municipal defendants, alleging the laws harmed pet shops and breeders, including out-of-state breeders and dealers.
- The district court dismissed the complaint and denied preliminary injunctive relief, rejecting federal preemption, dormant Commerce Clause, constitutional, and state-law preemption claims.
- NYPWA appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the AWA preempted New York City’s Sourcing Law restricting pet shops to sourcing animals from USDA Class A licensed breeders in good standing.
2. Whether the Sourcing Law violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce.
3. Whether New York state law preempted the City’s Spay/Neuter Law regulating sterilization requirements for pet-shop animals.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the AWA did not preempt the Sourcing Law because federal standards did not bar stricter local sourcing restrictions and Congress contemplated state and local involvement.
- The court held the Sourcing Law did not discriminate against interstate commerce and, under Pike balancing, imposed no clearly excessive burden relative to local benefits.
- The court held the Spay/Neuter Law was not preempted by New York law because NYPWA identified no statute or decision creating a conflict or exclusive state regulatory scheme barring local action.

## Legal Principles

- Federal preemption requires a clear congressional command; where federal law sets minimum standards and contemplates state/local participation, stricter local regulation may coexist absent conflict.
- A facially neutral local law does not discriminate under the dormant Commerce Clause when it applies evenhandedly to in-state and out-of-state actors and permits out-of-state participation on the same terms.
- Under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., a nondiscriminatory regulation affecting interstate commerce is invalid only if the burden on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.
- State-law preemption of local ordinances requires an express prohibition, a comprehensive and exclusive state scheme, or an actual conflict that prevents simultaneous compliance.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld New York City’s pet-shop sourcing and sterilization requirements, concluding they were valid exercises of local regulatory authority not displaced by the AWA, the dormant Commerce Clause, or New York state law.


N.Y. Pet Welfare Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, 850 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017)