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

August/September News

What happens if you see a dog in a hot car? It's that time of year when temperatures begin to soar with more reports of dogs left in hot cars. As of 2025, 32 states have laws that address this issue. States are almost evenly split on whether the law allows only animal control/law enforcement agents to rescue a pet or whether any person may do so, typically after following certain protocol (e.g., calling 911, ensuring the owner is not present, etc.). WRTV reported from Indiana, where a person who found two dogs locked in a hot vehicle learned she must pay half the damage costs to the vehicle. However, WBTV reported that a North Carolina woman who rescued a dog from a car on a 90 degree day was "reprimanded" for simply opening the car door to give the dog water (the car owner later refused to press charges against the rescuer). Where does your state lie on this issue? Go to our Map to learn more.

Washington becomes latest state to ban certain animals from traveling animal shows. On April 22nd, Gov. Bob Ferguson signed SB 5065 into law, which prohibits the use of "covered animals" in traveling animal acts like circuses and traveling exhibits. Covered animals include nonhuman primates, elephants, bears, and big cats. Washington now joins at least ten states with such laws. Last May, 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. In addition to these laws, several other states ban the use of cruel training methods on elephants. See all the laws in our Map.

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

Owner who surrendered sick dog to rescue was not deemed affiliated with a kennel to support cruelty conviction. State v. Burst, --- N.E.3d ----, 2025 WL 1793782 (Ohio Ct. App., 2025). The appellate court reversed Donte Burst's conviction for cruelty to companion animals under R.C. 959.131(E)(2), finding insufficient evidence that he was an owner, manager, or employee of a dog kennel, which was a required element of the offense. Burst had surrendered his sick dog to a rescue facility, which later euthanized the animal due to its poor condition. The court determined that the State failed to prove Burst’s connection to a kennel, as the statute required, and that the trial court erred in denying his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. Because the conviction lacked proof of an essential statutory element, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to vacate the conviction, barring retrial on double jeopardy grounds.

Seventh Circuit holds state university's viewpoint-based suppression of animal testing criticism in social media forum violates First Amendment. Krasno v. Mnookin, --- F.4th ----, 2025 WL 2180825 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, holding that the interactive comment threads on the University's social media posts constituted limited public forums under First Amendment jurisprudence, and that the University's "off-topic" comment restriction was neither reasonable nor viewpoint-neutral as applied to plaintiff Madeline Krasno's animal rights advocacy. Krasno, a former employee at the University's primate research facility, had repeatedly posted comments criticizing the school's animal testing practices, which the University systematically suppressed while allowing other unrelated comments to remain visible. The University admitted to hiding even an on-topic comment about animal testing in response to a post about veterinary care, while maintaining keyword filters that specifically targeted terms associated with animal rights criticism. Applying forum analysis, the court determined the comment threads were not government speech but rather limited public forums where restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, and it held the University's vague "off-topic" rule failed this standard by disproportionately targeting terms associated with anti-animal-testing viewpoints and lacking objective criteria for moderation decisions. The appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Krasno.

Case Archives