Animal Law Legal Center home page

Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

On this site you will find a comprehensive repository of information about animal law, including: over 1200 full text cases (US, historical, and UK), over 1400 US statutes, over 60 topics and comprehensive explanations, legal articles on a variety of animal topics and an international collection.

Read more about Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

September News

Have you ever heard the term "multispecies family?" While this term may be new to the U.S., other countries in Latin America like Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and Colombia already recognize this legal concept. This expansion of rights has resulted in a shift in how "family" is defined based on the idea of “free development of personality." Relying on the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, courts are declaring that everyone has the right to build their lives the way they see fit, so long as it does not harm others, and to have those choices respected. Here, this also includes one’s decision to add and keep animals into their family. There have been multiple landmark cases in Latin American courts that exemplify the courts’ recognition and protection of multispecies families. Learn more about this emerging concept in our new Multispecies Family Topic Intro.

Two more states enact laws restricting the use of certain animals in travelling performances and circuses. In May 2024, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed SB 547/HB 379 into law, which prohibits the use of elephants, big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates in traveling shows and circuses in the state. In August 2024, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed H 4915 into law, prohibiting the use of big cats, bears, elephants, non-human primates, and also giraffes. These states join California, Colorado, Hawaii (by regulation), Illinois, Kentucky (by regulation), New Jersey, and New York in banning the use of certain animals in traveling acts or circuses. According to Western Mass News, the Mass. ban was idling in the state legislature for decades, “but the death of an elephant in 2019 during the fair gave it an extra push.” The Maryland law goes into effect on October 1^st and the Massachusetts law is effective on January 1, 2025.

Eight states now allow courts to consider "best interests" of companion animals in divorce proceedings. In 2017, Alaska became the first state to adopt a "pet custody" law, which allowed a judge to "tak[e] into consideration the well-being of the animal." Since then, seven more states (California, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island) have joined the trend. The recent laws now allow judges to consider the emotional attachment of the animals to their owners as well as who has spent more time caring for the animal. A recent article in the Washington Post entitled "Who gets the dog in the divorce? Now a judge might decide," details how divorcing couples can even enter into agreements that allow former partners to share custody, though sometimes with "toxic" results. Will more states begin to pass similar legislation as was the case in early 2000s with pet trusts? It remains to be seen, but does reflect the legal system's evolving recognition of the importance companion animals. Learn more about the history of pets in divorce with our Topic Intro.

News archives

Cases

Dog-bite statute waives sovereign immunity in Minnesota. Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol, 9 N.W.3d 368 (Minn. 2024). This Minnesota Supreme Court case considers whether sovereign immunity shields the State Patrol from liability after a police canine injured a person in an unprovoked attack. This case stems from an incident where a state trooper brought his patrol vehicle to a car dealership accompanied by his State Patrol canine, and the canine committed an unprovoked attack on Berrier, who suffered serious and permanent injuries. The district court denied the State Patrol's motion to dismiss, finding that Berrier sufficiently pleaded her claim under the state's strict liability dog-bite statute. In doing so, the court observed that the law imposes strict liability on "the owner" of a dog with a "clear intent to include governmental entities . . ." The court of appeals reversed and Berrier then petitioned this court for review. On appeal here, the State Patrol questions whether Berrier adequately pleaded her dog-bite claim and whether the State Patrol has sovereign immunity even not when expressly referenced. Previous caselaw held that the dog-bite statute applies to municipal owners of police dogs but did not touch on State actors. The court found the language of the dog-bite statute is broadly inclusive and has previously been interpreted broadly to effect the goals of the law (e.g., ensuring a claimant's full recovery). The Court was not swayed by the State's concerns of exposure to wide-ranging liability since only three agencies have active canine programs with few canines actually trained in apprehension or tracking of suspects. The court of appeals decision was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant could not raise issue of dog's seizure for first time on appeal and evidence that dog was left in car on a 90+ degree day was sufficient. State v. Washburn, --- A.3d ----, 2024 WL 3629657 (Vt. Aug. 2, 2024). In this Vermont case, defendant appealed a criminal division order granting the State's motion for civil forfeiture of his dog "Chad" based on a finding that he subjected the dog to cruelty. Defendant left Chad, a Siberian husky, locked in his vehicle on an "unseasonably warm" day where temperatures were in the high nineties. Two subsequent incidents occurred in the following months, culminating in defendant's arrest and a requirement that defendant surrender his dog. On appeal, defendant argues that the criminal division lacked jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding. Defendant also argued that the criminal division erred in admitting lay witness testimony (the police officer) regarding the internal temperature of defendant's car. The Supreme Court found that the dog owner's challenge to the dog's seizure was not raised below, so the court held that it could not be raised for the first time on appeal. It also found clear and convincing evidence that established animal cruelty to warrant forfeiture, including the fact Chad had no access to water, the outside temperature was high, and the officer observed early stages of heat exhaustion in the dog. Finally, even if admitting the lay testimony of the officer as to internal car temperature was error, it "falls within the purview of harmless error" since the record provided an unchallenged temperature reading for that day and the officer observed closed windows and distress from the dog. The case was affirmed.

Court finds no on-going or imminent injury with Perdue's "Fresh Line" poultry labels that inaccurately depict free-roaming birds. Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Vilsack, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 3732881 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024). The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that the USDA violated the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by approving the labels for Perdue's “Fresh Line” chicken and turkey products. Specifically, ALDF claims that the USDA adopted a policy of evaluating only the text and not any graphics that appear on poultry-product labels. Fresh Line chickens and turkeys were raised strictly indoors and the approved product labels depict birds freely roaming outside a barn. ALDF asked the Department to reject any Perdue labels containing that kind of imagery because they claim the imagery misleads consumers into thinking the birds were raised in pastures, when they in fact spent the entirety of their lives in overcrowded warehouses. After denial, the ALDF sued the USDA and FSIS, alleging the Fresh Line labels violated the PPIA and APA and that FSIS has a "pattern and practice" of not reviewing such graphical imagery on poultry-label products. On appeal here of only associational standing, this court found that the member who was harmed cannot show a substantial likelihood that the member will suffer non-self-imposed harm in the future. In other words, the court was not convinced that the consumer member will continue to purchase the product in the future now that she knows the label is misleading. The district court's dismissal was affirmed.

Case Archives