UNITED STATES SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE FOUNDATION; GEORGE GUTHRIE; FRIEDA KRPAN v. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SUSAN MONAREZ, Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE FOUNDATION; GEORGE GUTHRIE; FRIEDA KRPAN v. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SUSAN MONAREZ, Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Feb 13, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Michael T. Jean, U.S. SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE FOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: Brian J. Springer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Michael T. Jean, U.S. SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE FOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio, Daniel R. Olson, GIELOW GROOM TERPSTRA & MCEVOY, PLC, Norton Shores, Michigan, for Appellant. Brian J. Springer, Thomas Pulham, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Judge(s): STRANCH, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Thanks in no small part to Americans’ love for dogs, rabies no longer spreads among dogs in the United States. The same is not true elsewhere. Starting in 2015, bad actors exploited a vulnerability in the dog importation regulations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and brought rabid dogs into the United States. In response, the CDC modified its existing regulation (the Dog Rule) through notice and comment rulemaking to require that (1) all dog importers submit a Dog Importation Form (DIF), (2) all dogs coming into the United States have a microchip, and (3) all such dogs be at least six months old. The plaintiffs say that the CDC has barked up the wrong tree. They sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Dog Rule’s age and microchip requirements, arguing that these two requirements exceed the CDC’s statutory authority and were promulgated via arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.1 The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. We agree with the district court and AFFIRM.

Attachments: