The panel said the dog-import rule fits the CDC's inspection authority and was rationally tied to preventing rabies and vaccination-document fraud.

What happened

The First Circuit on Monday affirmed a Massachusetts federal court's judgment for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holding that the agency had authority to require imported dogs to be at least six months old before entering the United States.

The plaintiff rescue organizations, which place stray puppies from Caribbean islands with adoptive families in the U.S., challenged the rule as exceeding the CDC's authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) and as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The First Circuit disagreed, leaving in place summary judgment for the government.

Writing for the panel, Judge Dunlap said the rule was "not only consistent with the types of measures described in § 264(a)" but was itself an inspection measure. The court reasoned that the age threshold helps officials screen for rabies symptoms and verify that a dog is old enough to have been effectively vaccinated.

The opinion also rejected the groups' argument that the rule was irrationally overbroad because it applies to dogs coming from Caribbean islands that the U.S. recognizes as rabies-free. The panel said the CDC could rationally guard against importers routing dogs from high-risk countries through nearby rabies-free countries, pointing to documented examples involving routes through Canada and Mexico.

The court further held that the CDC adequately addressed fraud concerns, citing the agency's record of underage dogs and falsified vaccination paperwork. It said the rule did not need to solve every dog-import problem at once and was accompanied by other measures aimed at identifying potentially rabid dogs, confirming vaccination and deterring fraud.

The panel also rejected the rescue groups' reliance-interest argument. It said the agency considered importer burdens when it adopted a six-month threshold rather than a seven-month threshold recommended by some in the scientific community, and concluded that the CDC reasonably explained its decision.