Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
A recent appeal out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is sure to upset pit bull advocates.
The appellate court refused to overturn a dismissal of a federal lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against Sioux City, Iowa, from enforcing their ban on pit bulls. And if you don’t know why this is a big deal, you may want to read up pit bulls (cause it’s not the dogs who are bad, it’s the owners).
No Pit Bulls Allowed
In Sioux City, and many other cities across the country, pit bulls, and similar breeds, have been banned due to the misconception that these breeds are more dangerous than others. Despite the fact that it is well known that a dog’s breed is less significant than it’s training and environment, many places have banned certain breeds due to stereotypes created by bad dog owners.
No Home, No Dog, No Injunction
In the Eighth Circuit case, Myers v. Sioux City, the appellate court explained that the plaintiffs no longer had standing because they no longer lived Sioux City, and no longer had a dog.
Although one plaintiff did lose their dog as a result of the Sioux City ordinance banning pit bulls, the court explained that because the plaintiffs only sought an injunction barring the enforcement of the law, and they no longer lived there or owned a dog, the court could not provide the requested relief, even if the law were found to be unconstitutional or void. In short, the court explained that without living in the city and without owning a dog (anymore) or having plans to get a new dog, the plaintiffs lacked standing sue for injunctive relief.