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

October News

Wisconsin considers legislation to penalize fraudulent service animal use and clarify ESA use in housing. This summer, Wisconsin reps introduced Assembly Bill 366, which seeks to amend W.S.A. 106.50 and create a new section 106.52. The proposed legislation redefines “service animal” to reflect the federal definition in 28 CFR 35.104 and makes it a crime for “a person who, with knowledge that the representation is false, intentionally represents that he or she is in possession of a service animal while at any public place.” Violation incurs a $200 fine for a first offense (with enhancements for subsequent violations). The state would join over 30 other states with fake service dog laws. In addition, the proposed changes to 106.50 expand the fine for falsely claiming the need for an emotional support animal to include those who practitioners who “provide[] false documentation of a prescription for an emotional support animal to assist with his or her disability.” Those licensed health professionals who prescribe an ESA to those “without having at least a 30-day patient-provider relationship with the patient” would also be fined. Currently, 19 states have laws that penalize fraudulent use of ESAs and/or regulate the manner and use of prescriptions for ESAs, viewable on this Map.

Delaware legislation addressing the problem of “excessive barking” becomes operative. Starting October 9, 2025, Delaware House Bill 124 goes into effect, after a one-year grace period that allowed Delaware residents to understand and comply with the law. Under new Section §3057F of the Animal Welfare Laws, “[n]o person who owns, possesses, harbors, or controls a dog may allow the dog to cause a noise disturbance by barking, whining, or howling for an extended period. An extended period means continuously for a period of 15 minutes or, intermittently, for 30 minutes or more.” Several exceptions exist, and a first violation is a written warning. You might be surprised to learn that only a couple of states have such laws, including Connecticut and Massachusetts. Some states may include excessive barking in their more general “nuisance” laws, but application of excessive barking to nuisance law is a question of fact. In most jurisdictions, barking dog laws are reserved for local ordinances, similar to leash laws.

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

Alaska Court of Appeals vacated appellant's conviction under dog barking ordinance due to vague law and suppression of due process, including exculpatory video, during trial. Lorenz v. City & Borough of Juneau, --- P.3d ----, 2025 WL 2180275 (Alaska Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2025). Appellant Dorene Lorenz appealed her conviction for two infractions under a municipal nuisance barking ordinance issued after her neighbors complained that her two dogs barked frequently and for prolonged periods on three specified dates. The appellate court, applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, construed the ordinance to incorporate an implicit "reasonable person" standard to cure the vagueness defect, thereby providing the requisite notice and guarding against arbitrary application. Procedurally, the court found the lower tribunal abused its discretion by precluding Lorenz from presenting potentially exculpatory video evidence of her dogs' conduct, which was central to her defense against the allegations. Additional due process concerns were identified, including limitations placed on Lorenz's right to cross-examine witnesses and potential discovery violations regarding the production of a "bark log" upon which the court relied in its findings. Given the cumulative impact of these errors on the quasi-criminal proceeding, the appellate court vacated the conviction. The appellate court vacated the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Seventh Circuit revives Fourth Amendment claims in the case of a pit bull seized over alleged inadequate shelter. Neita v. City of Chicago, --- F.4th ----, 2025 WL 2450614 (7th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025). This case concerns a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the warrantless seizure of a pit bull named Macy and the arrest of her owner, Vaughn Neita, for alleged violations of the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act following an anonymous tip. The investigation was triggered by reports of a dog kept in inhumane conditions, specifically alleging the animal was tied up outside all day without shelter, food, or water in freezing weather. The court construed the Act's "adequate shelter" and "sufficient quantity" requirements through an objective, reasonable person lens but concluded the record did not support a finding of arguable probable cause as a matter of law, thereby reviving the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for the unlawful seizure of the animal and false arrest. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Warrantless inspection under the Kansas Pet Animal Act (KPAA) unconstitutional according to federal district court. Johnson v. Smith, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 1651779 (D. Kan. June 11, 2025). This case involved a facial constitutional challenge to the Kansas Pet Animal Act (KPAA), specifically its authorization of unannounced, warrantless inspections of boarding and training kennels as a condition of licensure. The plaintiffs, kennel operators, contended that the statutory scheme, which deemed license acceptance as conclusive consent to such searches, violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Even assuming the industry was closely regulated, the court held the state failed to demonstrate a substantial interest justifying warrantless searches or that such searches were necessary to achieve its regulatory goals, particularly when many violations are not easily concealed and the state possesses but has never utilized its authority to obtain administrative warrants. Consequently, the court found the warrantless inspection provisions facially unconstitutional. The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the defendant from conducting surprise, routine warrantless inspections of boarding and training kennels or conditioning licensure on the waiver of Fourth Amendment rights.

Case Archives