Justices uphold kangaroo hide ban

The court unanimously decided that a 36-year-old ban on the import and sale of products made from various wildlife species, including kangaroo, was not preempted by federal wildlife law.

The case was brought by an animal protection group against Adidas, which sells soccer, rugby and baseball shoes made with the hide of kangaroo species that state law protects. Adidas argued that federal law, which permits the import and sale of kangaroo skin, takes precedence over state law.

A lawyer for Adidas said the shoes at issue would continue to be sold in California until other legal issues in the case are resolved. He said the case eventually could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Animal rights groups hailed the decision for giving states the right to protect species even after the federal government decided that they were no longer in peril.

Bending to pressure, soccer star David Beckham, who debuted last weekend with the Los Angeles Galaxy, has announced that he will no longer wear shoes made with kangaroo hide, according to published reports.

"The precedent is major across the country, especially with the number of species losing federal protection," said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of litigation for the Humane Society. "It is critically important in terms of a state's ability to protect species."

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown praised the ruling for protecting the state's autonomy.

"The significance is not just kangaroos and shoes but the authority of the state to protect species by banning products," Brown said. "It reaffirms that California has the authority and autonomy as a state to do this kind of work."

In ruling against Adidas, the court said the federal government's decision to withdraw protection for the kangaroo "leaves the field open for states to act as they individually see fit."

"The Commonwealth of Australia is free to manage its indigenous wildlife populations in any manner it sees fit, subject to international treaty obligations," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the court. "Likewise, California is free to regulate within its own borders unless federal law or the United States Constitution requires otherwise."