Sixth Circuit Upholds Application of CDC Puppy Import Rule

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can maintain its 6-month age minimum for imported puppies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said in confirming the policy falls within the agency’s authority to protect public health.

A three-judge panel based in Cincinnati found the lower court properly rejected a preliminary injunction motion that would’ve paused the rule’s enforcement until the US Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation resolved its legal challenge with the agency.

“The CDC asserts that the age and microchip requirements are statutorily authorized either as ‘inspection[s]’ or ‘other measures,’” Judge John K. Bush said in reference to 42 U.S.C. § 264. “We agree with the CDC and conclude § 264 likely authorizes the age and microchip requirements.”

The 2024 puppy import policy stipulates that dogs can’t be brought into the US unless they’re microchipped and at least 6 months old. The CDC claims the policy prevents the spread of dog-transmitted rabies, which has been eradicated in the US since 2007.

But three months after the final rule was released, the Alliance sued the CDC under the assertion that it created an arbitrary and capricious policy that regulates beyond its statutory authority.

The hunting group is one of three organizations that have raised grievances about the CDC rule through the courts. Rescue groups in Massachusetts and Florida brought cases to the appellate level after the district courts sided with the CDC.

The Sixth Circuit found that the microchip provision was statutorily authorized as an inspection provision because it’s a means for the CDC to “carry out inspections at the port of entry.” In particular, the CDC needs microchips to ensure a dog entering the US is the same as the dog listed on a required form dog importers have to file to the agency.

The CDC’s age requirement is also statutorily authorized because “it is another way to ascertain the quality or condition of the dogs,” Bush said. It counts as an inspection provision and qualifies under Section 264’s “other measures” catch-all that allows policies ensuring the destruction of infected articles and prevention of their entrance into the US.

“Puppies under six months of age are generally uncoordinated, but that is also true of dogs infected with rabies,” the opinion said. “The age requirement operates similarly to the CDC’s euthanasia authority because it prevents an animal from entering the United States while its risk of having or spreading rabies is difficult to ascertain.”

The Alliance contended that both the microchip and age requirements were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, ruling that both provisions were enacted reasonably, based on the record provided through the CDC’s notice and comment period.

Judges Jane Branstetter Stranch and Chad A. Readler joined the opinion.

Individual plaintiffs are represented by Gielow Groom Terpstra & McEvoy. The law firm also represents the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation alongside the Foundation’s in-house counsel.

The case is U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Fdn. v. CDC, 6th Cir., No. 25-01473, opinion filed 2/13/26.