Animal Law Legal Center home page

November News

  Study Links Wildlife Cruelty to Dramatically Higher Rates of Child Abuse. Researchers at Kansas State University and the Animal Welfare Institute surveyed 622 individuals and found that killing wildlife was associated with a 712% increase in any child abuse and intentional wildlife harm with a 1,548% increase. Cruelty-motivated wildlife harm corresponded to a 2,445% increase in very severe physical child abuse, while harming wildlife "for entertainment" or "for no reason" was linked to a 2,853% increase in physical child abuse. The researchers suggested childhood cruelty to companion animals may partly reflect pets' proximity and the greater likelihood that family members witness or are controlled through such abuse, underscoring the goals of cross-reporting animal and child cruelty.

   Alabama's New "Beau's Law" Illustrates National Patchwork of Outdoor Dog Laws. Alabama's Beau's Law (Ala. Code 1975 § 3-6B-1, et seq.), effective October 1, 2026, comprehensively regulates outdoor dog confinement by banning stationary tethering, requiring trolley systems and adequate shelter, and prohibiting choke or pinch collars, with escalating misdemeanor penalties for repeat offenses. Nationally, roughly 23 states have enacted some form of dog tethering law, though specifics vary widely: some limit tether duration or length, while others fold tethering into broader anti-cruelty statutes. Ohio, for example, has no tethering law, permitting prolonged outdoor chaining so long as basic food, water, and "adequate shelter" are provided. This fragmented landscape means a dog's legal protection against dangerous outdoor confinement depends heavily on its ZIP code.

   USFWS Memo Radically Narrows ESA "Take" Prohibition to Exclude Incidental Harm. According to the Animal Welfare Institute, a September 14, 2026 internal USFWS memorandum reinterprets "take" under the Endangered Species Act to prohibit only intentional, purposeful acts of killing or injuring listed species, excluding incidental harm, an interpretation Director Brian Nesvik adopted alongside the final rule rescinding the agency's definition of "harm." This upends a core ESA protection that previously required industries and federal agencies to avoid foreseeable incidental take or obtain mitigation permits. The reinterpretation departs sharply from Congress's intent and the statute's broad definition of "take," which includes "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect."

News archives

Cases

California anti-cruelty law with exception for "right to kill animals for food" does not apply to killing another's animals without consent. People v. Madruga, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2026 WL 2873804 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 2026). Defendant Anthony Mark Owen Madruga broke into a locked barn at Hollister High School at night and killed a goat and pig owned by students in the school's Future Farmers of America program, later butchering the pig at a homeless encampment. He was convicted of two counts of animal cruelty under Penal Code section 597(a) and two counts of misdemeanor child abuse under section 273a(b) based on the emotional harm to the student owners. On appeal, he argued that section 599c's "right to kill all animals used for food" exception negated malice and required a sua sponte jury instruction, and that insufficient evidence supported both the pig-related cruelty conviction and the child abuse convictions. The court held that section 599c does not authorize killing another's animal without the owner's consent, as the "right to kill" is tethered to ownership or lawful privilege rather than an unrestricted license to slaughter any animal for sustenance, and thus found no instructional error or ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also affirmed the child abuse convictions, finding substantial evidence of unjustifiable mental suffering and criminal negligence arising from the defendant's nighttime barn intrusion and violent killing of the students' animals. The judgment is affirmed.

CDC importation requirements for dogs coming from high-risk Caribbean countries not arbitrary or capricious. Bruno Project Rescue Inc. v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 182 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. July 13, 2026). This case addresses whether the CDC's 2024 regulation requiring all imported dogs to be at least six months old, challenged by Caribbean dog-rescue organizations, exceeds the agency's authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) and is arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court found the age requirement constitutes a permissible "inspection" measure directly related to preventing rabies reintroduction, as it helps officials screen for rabies, verify vaccination effectiveness, and deter fraudulent importation of underage dogs from high-risk countries routed through rabies-free nations. The court also held the regulation is not an import prohibition requiring country-specific findings under § 265, and that the CDC rationally considered reliance interests and fraud evidence, rejecting arguments that the rule was overbroad or underinclusive. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the CDC.

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).