Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brief Summary of Swap Meet Laws | Zoe Friedland | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Animal swap meets are places where people buy, sell or trade animals in an open-air, flea-market-style setting. Swap meet vendors sell and trade a wide range of animals, from birds, to farm animals, to cats and dogs. |
| Oats, Water, Hay, And Everything Else: The Regulation of Anabolic Steroids In Thoroughbred Horse Racing | Bradley S. Friedman | 16 Animal L. 123 (2009) |
This Article provides an overview of those anabolic steroid regulations in the context of the history of regulation in Thoroughbred horse racing. This Article concludes that while the current limitation on the effectiveness of anabolic steroid regulation is a lack of research and accurate laboratory testing, using a pervasive federal law might be the most effective way of ending the use of anabolic steroids in horse racing. |
| MEAT LABELING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS | Bruce Friedrich | 20 Animal L. 79 (2013) | The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates meat labeling under the statutory authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The FMIA’s labeling preemption clause prohibits labeling requirements beyond federal requirements, and would thus preclude state causes of action on the basis of deceptive labels that were properly approved under federal law. Through the eyes of Kat, a hypothetical consumer concerned with the origins of the meat she purchases for her family, this Article argues that consumers should be able to pursue state law claims based on fraudulent animal welfare labels on packages of meat. This is true for two reasons: first, the FMIA’s labeling preemption only covers the USDA’s statutory scope of authority, which does not include on-farm treatment of animals; and second, both FMIA and a state cause of action would require the same thing—a non-fraudulent label. However, even if a court did find that a state cause of action based on a fraudulent label was preempted, consumer plaintiffs would have other avenues through which to pursue their claims. |
| THE CHURCH OF ANIMAL LIBERATION: ANIMAL RIGHTS AS ‘RELIGION’ UNDER THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE | Bruce Friedrich | 21 Animal L. 65 (2014) | In this Article, I contend that a belief in animal liberation qualifies as religion under the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of the United States Constitution. Thus, every time a prison warden, public school teacher or administrator, or government employer refuses to accommodate the ethical belief of an animal liberationist, they are infringing on that person’s religious freedom, and they should have to satisfy the same constitutional or statutory requirements that would adhere were the asserted interest based on more traditional religious exercise. One possible solution to the widespread violations of the First Amendment rights of animal liberationists would be the incorporation of a ‘Church of Animal Liberation’ under the Internal Revenue Code (as a proper church or as a religious organization). This would help to protect the free exercise rights of those who believe in animal rights because it would give them a religious organization to reference—with articles of incorporation that align with the jurisprudential definition of religion—in making their requests for religious accommodation. First, this Article discusses the constitutional definition of religion, what it means to believe in animal liberation, and animal liberation beliefs that circuit court precedent already recognizes as religious. Then, it discusses how animal liberation-based free exercise conflicts would play out in practice (e.g., identifying when infringing on the rights of animal liberationists would require strict scrutiny and when it would not). Lastly, this Article suggests that incorporating a group (e.g., a ‘Church of Animal Liberation’) as a religious organization under the Internal Revenue Code might help to secure constitutional rights for animal liberationists, and explains what would be required to incorporate such an organization. |
| Brief Summary of Feral Cat Legal Issues | David Fry | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This overview discusses state laws that impact feral cats. The article analyzes the concept of "ownership" as it concerns feral cats, and outlines some of the legal considerations for feral cat caretakers. |
| Detailed Discussion of Feral Cat Legal Issues | David Fry | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article addresses three primary legal questions. First, the article discusses issues related to ownership of and responsibility for feral cats, analyzing the treatment of ownership and responsibility under both feral cat statutes and common law. Second, the article addresses the question of whether feral cat keepers or caretakers can be held civilly liable for the actions of feral cats. Third, the article discusses the ways in which feral cat keepers or caretakers may be exposed to criminal liability for abandonment, neglect, or failure to comply with state or local animal ownership requirements. |
| 2001 Legislative Review | Laurie Fulkerson | 8 Animal L. 259 (2001) |
This article presents an overview of 2001 animal-related legislation. |
| Canned Hunts: The Other Side of the Fence | Fund for Animals | http://fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=42&table=documents |
This article, reprinted with permission from The Fund for Animals' website, explains the activity referred to as 'canned hunting.' |
| Canned Hunts: Unfair at Any Price | Fund for Animals | http://fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=338&table=documents |
This article explores the issues surrounding "canned hunts." Section I provides an introduction and overview; explores the ethical objections to canned hunts based on standards generally accepted by the sport hunting community; raises questions about the appropriate legal analogy that should be applied to canned hunts; and discusses the serious animal health and public health issues raised by canned hunts. Section II catalogs the relevant statutes and regulations of each state with an example of a model ordinance relating to the regulation of canned hunts. |
| Detailed Discussion of New Hampshire Great Ape Laws | Erin Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in New Hampshire. In the state of New Hampshire, there is no specific law that contains an outright ban on private ownership of great apes. However, there are laws that address the importation and possession of wildlife.New Hampshire also has laws that address endangered species, animal cruelty, and the importation and possession of wildlife. Additionally,importation and possession of great apes is an area that is strictly regulated under New Hampshire law. |