In a legal and ethical context, a red herring is the logical fallacy of presenting a legal or factual issue that is irrelevant and used to divert attention away from the main issues of a case. The origin of the term is derived from the practice of training hunting dogs by dragging cured herrings in the opposite direction of the scent trail of a fox; this would train dogs to detect distractions and to stay on their intended trail. For example, in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F. 3d 272 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2018 the opinion states “In considering on appeal the likelihood of success on the merits, it is necessary to focus narrowly on the dispositive question and to avoid the invitation of the parties to weigh in on broader policy considerations. For instance, the Attorney General repeatedly characterizes the issue as whether localities can be allowed to thwart federal law enforcement. That is a red herring. First, nothing in this case involves any affirmative interference with federal law enforcement at all, nor is there any interference whatsoever with federal immigration authorities. The only conduct at issue here is the refusal of the local law enforcement to aid in civil immigration enforcement through informing the federal authorities when persons are in their custody and providing access to those persons at the local law enforcement facility. Some localities might choose to cooperate with federal immigration efforts, and others may see such cooperation as impeding the community relationships necessary to identify and solve crimes. The choice as to how to devote law enforcement resources — including whether or not to use such resources to aid in federal immigration efforts — would traditionally be one left to state and local authorities. Whether the conscription of local and state law enforcement for federal immigration enforcement through the sword of withholding federal funds presents other Constitutional concerns is not before us. See generally Nat. Federation of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 580, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012).”
The term may also refer to the first step in the procedure for a governmental approval of apartment conversion plans. For example, the Southern District of New York, in Banque Arabe Et Internationale D’Investissement v. Maryland Nat. Bank, described this stage, where:
In the red herring stage, the sponsor submits a draft proposed offering plan, or “red herring”, to the Department of Law and simultaneously provides copies of the red herring to existing tenants of the building. The Department of Law reviews the contents of the red herring and either accepts the plan for filing, issues a deficiency letter to the sponsor, or rejects the plan for filing. The Department of Law is required to take one of these actions within six months of the red herring's submission. During the red herring stage, no advertising, offers, or sales can legally take place. If the Department of Law issues a deficiency letter, the sponsor is given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies. If the Department of Law rejects the red herring, a revised red herring must then be filed if the sponsor wishes to proceed with the conversion.
In addition, a red herring prospectus is a document that issuers disseminate to prospective investors during the waiting period in the initial public offering process (IPO) to describe their business operations and their offering.
[Last updated in July of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]