Animal Law Legal Center home page

May - June News

  Indiana dropped its unique “half-damages” rule for rescue of pets in its hot car law, leaving only 32 states with laws on leaving pets unattended in hot vehicles. In 2006, California became the first state to enact a criminal law penalizing those who leave pets unattended in vehicles during extreme temps. It wasn’t until 2015 when Tennessee became the first state to allow good Samaritans to rescue pets from hot vehicles. In March, Indiana Gov. Braun signed House Bill 1165 into law, which eliminated the previous requirement that citizen rescuers pay 50% of vehicle repair costs. Now, anyone who forcibly enters a vehicle to rescue a domestic animal is fully immune from both criminal and civil liability for property damage, provided they meet specific conditions. The change was intended to remove the financial deterrent that previously discouraged bystanders from intervening in life-threatening situations. The law takes effect July 1, 2026. Find out where your state stands through our Map of Laws.

   Curious about legislative changes from 2025? In 2025, state legislatures continued the incremental expansion of animal law, adding veterinary telehealth provisions, creating cruelty conviction registries, defining torture in cruelty statutes, and establishing wildlife corridor action plans. As was the case with previous years, the pace of legislative change in the animal law realm appears to have slowed. That said, several important changes to anti-cruelty laws occurred, including two states (DE and FL) enacting animal abuser registries and some states refining their anti-cruelty laws to specifically include abandonment and necessary medical care as violations. Iowa and North Carolina joined several states that allow the transport of injured police dogs by ambulance, provided there is no competing human need. More states defined and expanded their definition of "veterinary-client-patient-relationship" (VCPR) to include telemedicine services, thereby expanding the reach of veterinary care. Finally, Massachusetts became the sixth state to ban the non-therapeutic de-clawing of cats. Check out our Table of Statutory Amendments for more.

   Missouri seeks to expand “cross-reporting” law to help both animal and domestic violence victims. Cross-reporting laws are laws that either require or allow certain agency professionals to report suspected incidents of cruelty or neglect to other agencies, even if the underlying event falls under a different agency’s jurisdiction. In the context of animal law, this means that a child protective worker could report suspected animal abuse to animal control or animal control could report suspected child abuse or neglect to protective services. About 15 U.S. and D.C. have laws that permit or mandate cross-reporting of abuse. According to a recent article out of Missouri, HB 1298 seeks to add animal control officers and humane investigators to the list of mandatory reporters for child or elder abuse. Not only is animal abuse seen as a “predictor crime” for human violence, but animal control officers have ten times the contact with the public compared to law enforcement officers. Curious to learn more about the importance of cross-reporting laws? Check out our Topic Introduction.

News archives

Cases

Court overturns activist’s trespass convictions after ruling he could argue honest mistake that necessity justified ‘open rescues’ at poultry farms. People v. Hsiung, 120 Cal. App. 5th 319 (2026), as modified on denial of reh'g (May 12, 2026). Animal rights activist Wayne Hsiung was convicted of trespass and conspiracy for entering poultry farms without permission to document conditions and remove suffering animals as part of "open rescues" by his group Direct Action Everywhere. The California appellate court held that while necessity cannot justify his premeditated actions, the trial court violated his right to present a defense by excluding evidence and jury instructions on his good-faith mistake of law—namely, that he honestly but mistakenly believed necessity justified his conduct. The court reversed his convictions for conspiracy and trespass with intent to interfere with a business, while affirming a separate trespass conviction for refusing to leave property. 

North Carolina sanctuary loses zoning fight: hosting 60–70 farm animals with paid events isn’t protected residential use, court rules. Dunckel v. City of Winston-Salem, --- S.E.2d ----, 2026 WL 890398 (N.C. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026). A North Carolina appellate court upheld Winston-Salem’s ban on a nonprofit animal sanctuary operating in a residential zone, rejecting claims that classifying the sanctuary as akin to a prohibited kennel or shelter violated property owners’ fundamental right to earn a living. The court applied Kinsley v. Ace Speedway, finding the city’s goal of preserving residential character a proper governmental purpose and its zoning enforcement a reasonable means, given the sanctuary’s commercial activities including paid events with hundreds of guests. The court also dismissed equal protection arguments, distinguishing sanctuaries from personal pets, daycares, schools, and churches as either non-commercial, integral to residential life, or constitutionally protected..

No duty to seize: Louisiana Supreme Court holds parish not liable for dog attack inside town limits where statute grants only permissive authority. Gray v. Town of Ringgold, 431 So. 3d 312 (La. 3/25/26). In this Louisiana Supreme Court writ disposition, the plaintiff sought to hold the Bienville Parish Police Jury (BPPJ) liable for injuries caused by dogs running at large within the incorporated Town of Ringgold. The court held that under La. R.S. 3:2731, parishes have only permissive authority to regulate dogs, not a mandatory duty, and under La. R.S. 3:2773(B), the BPPJ—not being a listed law enforcement agency—has no duty to seize dogs inside municipal limits. Additionally, the court found that La. R.S. 3:2774’s requirement for parishes to provide suitable shelters did not, standing alone, state a cause of action for failure to seize the dogs prior to the incident, as that issue is better resolved by summary judgment. Accordingly, the court granted the writ in part, reversed the court of appeal, and reinstated the trial court’s partial granting of the peremptory exception of no cause of action in favor of the BPPJ.

Case Archives

Articles

The Restatement of Torts and Recovery for Loss of the Human-Pet Bond After an Intentional Tort, Merle H. Weiner, 55 U. Mem. L. Rev. 525 (2025).

Companion Animals: A Legislative Proposal to Redefine Their Legal Worth, Angie Vega, 98 Tul. L. Rev. 961 (2024).

Examining the Veterinary Client-Patient Relationship in the United States: Why the Abolition of the In-Person Examination Requirement is Warranted, Jeffrey P. Feldmann, 56 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 91 (2023).

Derechos de los animales en Colombia: una lectura crítica en perspectiva ambiental, Carlos Lozano, State Law Magazine, 54 (Nov. 2022), 345–380.

Forgotten Victims of War: Animals and the International Law of Armed Conflict, Saba Pipia, 28 Animal L. 175 (2022).