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

April News

FDA adopts Roadmap to Phase Out Animal Testing. On April 10, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued "The Roadmap to Reducing Animal Testing in Preclinical Safety Studies." This roadmap reflects a policy shift aimed at reducing its reliance on animal testing for drug development and incorporating new approach methodologies (NAMs). According to the executive summary, "[t]his roadmap outlines a strategic, stepwise approach for FDA to reduce animal testing in preclinical safety studies with scientifically validated new approach methodologies (NAMs), such as organ-on-a-chip systems, computational modeling, and advanced in vitro assays." This change, according to the FDA, is designed to accelerate the evaluation process and reduce animal experimentation. The change has been applauded by animal welfare organizations like Humane World for Animals and Cruelty Free International, both of which have previously championed such changes. Advocates also urge passage of the HR 1291, the HEARTS Act (Humane and Existing Alternatives in Research and Testing Sciences), a bipartisan bill reintroduced in Congress in February. The HEARTS Act seeks to modernize NIH-funded research by prioritizing non-animal methods wherever feasible by providing clear incentives for researchers to reduce reliance on animal methods.

Lost pet scams becoming an increasing issue for some communities. In the past few years, there has been a rise in pet scamming attempts or “puppy scams.” Previously, puppy scams focused on those seeking to buy designer or pedigreed dogs from Internet or social media posts, where a buyer would agree to purchase a puppy only to have the scammer ask for additional funds for “shipping/crate fees” or even “importation costs.” According to news stories in states like Pennsylvania and Arizona, scammers are now targeting owners of lost pets by posing as animal shelters. The scammers text or call the owners by spoofing the animal shelter’s phone number, and then demanding money through a payment app to prevent euthanasia of the pet. Just like the puppy sale scams, authorities advise owners to hang up and call the shelter to confirm and to never send money over the phone.

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

10th Cir. Affirms USDA’s $210K Penalty for Animal Health Act Breaches. Fabrizius v. Dep't of Agric., 129 F.4th 1226 (10th Cir. 2025). The Tenth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Fabrizius Livestock LLC, affirming a $210,000 civil penalty imposed by the USDA for violations of the Animal Health Protection Act as well as the Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act. The case involved Fabrizius's interstate sales of horses, many destined for slaughter, without required health documentation. The violations included: (1) transporting 14 horses without owner-shipper certificates required by CTESA to ensure humane transport conditions; (2) selling 50 horses across state lines without Interstate Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (ICVIs) mandated by AHPA regulations for disease tracking; and (3) selling an EIA-positive horse that triggered a multi-state disease investigation, with 67 exposed horses remaining untraceable. The court upheld the USDA’s determination that Fabrizius Livestock qualified as a "person responsible," rejecting constitutional vagueness and due process challenges. The court also found the penalty neither arbitrary nor excessive under the Eighth Amendment, deferring to the agency’s consideration of statutory factors, including the violations’ gravity, Fabrizius’s experience in the industry, and the potential economic and health risks posed by the undocumented horse movements.

Conn. Court Rules Two Emotional Support Animals Not 'Necessary' for Fair Housing Accommodation, Reverses Bias Verdict. Comm'n on Hum. Rts. & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, --- A.3d ----, 231 Conn. App. 121 (2025). The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (Pizzoferrato) holding that they failed to establish their housing discrimination claim under General Statutes § 46a-64c. The case arose when the defendants, The Mansions, LLC, initially approved the Pizzoferratos’ request for an accommodation to keep two emotional support dogs—despite a "no pets" policy—but later rescinded approval for the second dog, demanding additional documentation to justify its necessity. The trial court found that the defendants violated fair housing laws by constructively denying the accommodation request. On appeal, the Appellate Court agreed that plaintiff qualified as disabled under the "record of" prong based on her therapist’s diagnosis, even if imperfectly documented, but rejected the trial court’s conclusion that two dogs were "necessary" under the statute. Relying on federal precedent, the court held that "necessary" means indispensable, not merely preferable, and the plaintiffs failed to show that both dogs were essential rather than simply beneficial. Because the defendants offered to allow one dog—an alternative that would have satisfied Wendy’s needs—the court found no violation of fair housing laws and reversed the judgment.

Mass. Court Upholds Dog-Punching Cruelty Conviction: No 'Justifiable Cause' for 10 Blows Over Groundhog Defense. Commonwealth v. Adams, --- N.E.3d ----, 2025 WL 967033 (Mass. Apr. 1, 2025). The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for animal cruelty under G. L. c. 272, § 77, after witnesses observed him repeatedly punch his dog in the head while visibly angry in a public park, purportedly to stop the dog from attacking a groundhog. The defendant claimed he acted to protect the groundhog and minimized harm by "pulling his punches," but eyewitnesses testified he struck the dog forcefully five to ten times over 30–40 seconds, with one bystander confronting him about the beating. At trial, the judge excluded the defense’s veterinary technician expert from testifying about the dog’s pain response and "prey drive," and declined to give requested jury instructions on bona fide discipline and defense of another animal. The court held that excluding the expert testimony was either harmless or cumulative, as the jury heard other evidence about the dog’s lack of injuries and aggressive behavior. Furthermore, the standard jury instructions—which required the Commonwealth to prove the defendant inflicted "severe or unnecessary pain without justifiable cause"—adequately covered his theories of defense, making supplemental instructions unnecessary. Thus, finding no reversible error, the court upheld the conviction.

Court Sides With Clinic in ADA Service Dog Case, Finds Physician's Severe Allergy Constitutes 'Direct Threat.' Reaves v. Immediate Med. Care, P.A., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 761467 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2025). The United States District Court adjudicated a claim brought by Erin Reaves, an individual with diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and bipolar disorder, against Immediate Medical Care, P.A., a medical clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Reaves alleged that the clinic violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when staff refused to allow her service dog, Malia—a trained animal that assisted with her psychiatric disabilities—to accompany her during a scheduled April 2023 medical appointment. The clinic based its refusal on the severe dog allergies of one of its physicians, Dr. Gargin, and offered alternative accommodations, including seeing a different doctor or having the dog wait outside. After a three-day bench trial, the court found that while Reaves was disabled under the ADA and Malia qualified as a service animal, Immediate Medical Care had lawfully excluded the dog under the ADA’s "direct threat" exception. The court credited evidence that Dr. Gargin’s allergy posed a genuine health risk, noted that the clinic had conducted an individualized assessment under 28 C.F.R. § 36.208(b), and emphasized that reasonable modifications—such as rescheduling with another provider—had been offered. Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of Immediate Medical Care, holding that a public accommodation may exclude a service animal when objective evidence shows it would endanger another’s health and alternative accommodations are available.

Case Archives