In a recent development, the ASPCA agreed to pay Feld Entertainment, the owner of the Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Circuses, a settlement of $9.3 million. This payment resolves claims that the organization engaged in litigation abuse during a decade-long lawsuit. The original suit, filed by the ASPCA, alleged the mistreatment of elephants by the circus.
Other organizations that were also named as defendants in Feld Entertainment’s countersuit, including the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), have chosen not to settle and are continuing to participate in the litigation. The settlement agreement by the ASPCA effectively acknowledges the severity of the litigation abuse charges leveled against the organization.
Parallel to the Hudson Farm Litigation
This settlement brings to light a parallel with other high-profile instances of questionable litigation conduct in public interest suits. A notable comparison can be made to the recently dismissed Hudson Farm litigation in Maryland. In that case, a judge severely criticized the Waterkeeper Alliance for what was deemed “shoddy litigation conduct” in a suit filed under the Clean Water Act.
Both cases underscore the serious judicial consequences that can arise from a failure to adhere to rigorous standards of evidence and procedural ethics when pursuing cause-driven legal action.
Policy Implications for Cause Litigation and Tax Deductibility
The outcomes of the ASPCA and Hudson Farm cases prompt a reconsideration of the policy allowing broad tax deductibility for expenses related to suing people in “cause litigation.” This policy, which has been in place since 1970, encourages non-profit organizations to engage in legal action to advance their mission.
However, when such litigation is found to be abusive, unsupported, or based on flawed evidence, it raises questions about the public benefit and the appropriate use of tax-exempt status. Legal analysts, such as Ted Frank at Point of Law, have also commented on the need to scrutinize the incentives and accountability mechanisms surrounding this type of litigation. The debate centers on whether the current policy adequately balances the goals of public interest advocacy against the necessity of deterring litigation misconduct.
Public and Professional Commentary
The public interest generated by this case, particularly the financial settlement and the nature of the allegations, has resulted in extensive commentary. For example, the online discussions following the publication of an opinion piece on this matter in the New York Post proved to be more substantive than typical, even including official statements from organizations involved, such as the HSUS, and a response from the head of the ASPCA. The professional and public discourse surrounding the settlement highlights the complex ethical and legal considerations inherent in high-stakes public interest litigation.
