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

November News

Were there any animal-related ballot measures in 2024? Similar to the past few elections, there were only a couple measures on state ballots related to animals. In Colorado, voters rejected Proposition 127 which was aimed at "trophy hunting." Over 55% of voters voted "no" on this measure would prohibit intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging a deadly weapon at bobcats, lynx, and mountain lions. The proposition included a penalty of up to 364 days in jail and/or $1,000 in fines, along with hunting license restrictions. On the other hand, Florida voters passed Amendment 2, which enshrines the right to fish and hunt in the state constitution. According to the ballot summary, the amendment will "preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife."

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.

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..

News archives

Cases

City not owner of fostered dog that bit dog sitter for purposes of strict liability and negligence. Marshall v. City of Tulsa, --- P.3d ----, 2024 WL 4686865 (Okla.,2024). This Oklahoma case centers around a pit bull named Julian, who was being fostered from Tulsa Animal Welfare. The foster went on vacation and left the dog with a pet-sitter named Sarah Marshall. The dog arrived at Marshall's home and was placed with five other dogs. This caused a fight to break out and Marshall's hand was bitten and fractured in the process of breaking up the fight. Marshall sued the City of Tulsa alleging strict liability, common law negligence, and negligence per se. The City filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Marshall was the owner of the dog at the time of the bite and the trial court granted the City's motion. Marshall then filed the instant appeal, alleging that she was not an owner of Julian but only a temporary boarder and that City has the legal right of possession of Julian. This court disagreed, finding that the Tulsa ordinance's definition of "owner" applied to Marshall because she was responsible for Julian's care and maintenance at the time. In addition, Marshall was not a foreseeable plaintiff from the foster's placement of Julian with her. In fact, the foster's placement of Julian with Marshall violated the Foster Agreement. The trial court's granting of summary judgment and denial of Marshall's motion for partial summary judgement was affirmed.

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