The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in February 2026 in a case pitting the United States Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation against federal health agencies, marking the latest development in ongoing litigation involving outdoor recreation and federal regulatory authority.
The case, *United States Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation v. CDC* (6th Cir. 2026), involves the sportsmen's advocacy organization along with individual plaintiffs George Guthrie and Frieda Krpan challenging actions by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. The appeal stems from an unfavorable district court ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids, presided over by District Judge Paul Lewis Maloney.
The Sixth Circuit panel that heard the case consisted of Circuit Judges Jane B. Stranch, Amul R. Thapar, and Chad A. Readler. Oral arguments took place on December 11, 2025, with the court issuing its decision and filing the opinion on February 13, 2026. The opinion has been designated for publication pursuant to Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b), indicating the court views the decision as having precedential value for future cases.
Representing the plaintiffs-appellants, attorney Michael T. Jean of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, argued the case before the appeals court. The plaintiffs also retained Daniel R. Olson of Gielow Groom Terpstra & McEvoy, PLC, based in Norton Shores, Michigan, to assist with their legal representation.
The federal defendants-appellees were represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, with Brian J. Springer serving as lead counsel and handling oral arguments. Thomas Pulham, also with the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., provided additional support on the brief.
The case names several high-profile defendants in their official capacities, including Susan Monarez, who serves as Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who holds the position of Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under the current administration.
The United States Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation is a prominent advocacy organization that works to protect hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation rights across the country. The organization frequently engages in legal challenges when it believes federal or state regulations improperly restrict outdoor recreation activities or exceed statutory authority.
While the specific nature of the underlying dispute is not detailed in the available court documents, the case appears to center on regulatory actions or policies implemented by the CDC and HHS that the sportsmen's organization and individual plaintiffs contend improperly affect their interests or rights.
The involvement of both the CDC and HHS as defendants suggests the case may involve public health regulations or policies that intersect with outdoor recreation activities. Such cases have become increasingly common as federal health agencies have expanded their regulatory reach into various sectors that outdoor enthusiasts argue fall outside proper agency authority.
The fact that the Sixth Circuit designated this opinion for publication indicates the court's decision establishes important legal precedent that will guide future cases involving similar issues. Published opinions carry precedential weight and must be followed by lower courts within the Sixth Circuit, which includes federal district courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
The case number 25-1473 reflects that this appeal was filed in 2025, with the underlying district court case bearing the number 1:24-cv-00818, indicating the original lawsuit was filed in 2024. This timeline suggests the litigation moved relatively quickly through the district court level before reaching the appeals court.
The designation of the case for publication and the involvement of a major advocacy organization suggests this decision could have broader implications for how federal health agencies implement policies that affect outdoor recreation activities. The outcome may influence future regulatory approaches and provide guidance for similar challenges to federal agency authority.
The case represents part of ongoing tensions between federal regulatory agencies and outdoor recreation advocates, who often argue that health and environmental regulations exceed statutory authority or improperly burden constitutionally protected activities.
Legal observers will be watching to see how this decision impacts the relationship between federal health agencies and outdoor recreation communities, particularly as both the CDC and HHS continue to implement policies that may affect various aspects of American life and recreation.