Animal Law Legal Center home page

September News


  California moves one step closer to banning animal testing of cosmetics sold or imported in the state. SB-1249, introduced by Senator Cathleen Galgiani, would amend Section 1834.9.5 of the Civil Code related to animal testing. Existing law prohibits manufacturers and contract testers from using animal testing when an appropriate alternative test method recommended by the ICCVAM exists. The proposed changes are much broader, making it unlawful for a manufacturer to import or sell any cosmetic if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. The penalty in the existing law remains (a fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000) and an additional one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day the violation continues) and exceptions do exist. If Governor Jerry Brown signs the measure, the state would become the first to ban cosmetics tested on animals beginning on January 1, 2020 (although companies are given a 180-day window to get rid of banned inventory after the law goes into effect).

  Ohio joins 10 or so other states that have laws allowing restaurants to maintain “dog friendly” patios. Governor John Kasich signed HB 263 into law after the bill passed the House and Senate without issue. The bill amends section 3717.05 and enacts section 3717.14 of the Revised Code, giving a "retail food establishment or food service operation" the ability to allow dogs in outdoor dining areas provided some requirements are met. Among other things, the law requires that food service establishments adopt policies requiring patrons to control their dogs, imposes proper vaccination for visiting dogs, and mandates that no dogs enter the restaurant through the indoor dining areas. Want to learn more about laws on dogs in outdoor dining areas? Check out our FAQ!

   Introducing our collection of South American legal materials. As our web-based library keeps growing, we are excited to showcase a compilation of laws and cases from several South American countries including Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, and Peru. The summaries for the materials are in English with links to the original laws or cases in Spanish. The topic introduction for Columbia includes a detailed legal analysis of bullfighting, which explores the recent push to outlaw the activity (in English). Each of the topic introductions includes a brief summary of the country's legal structure. We also have a robust collection from Brazil that includes a full collection of the Brazilian Law Journal, Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal (in Portuguese).

News archives



On issue of first impression, federal COA holds that service animal regulations for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) apply to Rehabilitation Act (RA). Berardelli v. Allied Services Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, --- F.3d ----, 2018 WL 3849363 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2018). This case presents an issue of first impression in the Court of Appeals: whether regulations on service animals, which technically apply only to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), require that individuals with disabilities be allowed to be accompanied by their service animals under the Rehabilitation Act (RA). The facts involve an elementary student with dyslexia and epilepsy who sought to be accompanied by her service dog to school. The child's parent subsequently sued the school, arguing that the school had failed to accommodate the child under Section 504 of the RA. At District Court, the jury returned a verdict for the school. On appeal here, appellants argue that, because the subjective standards for liability under the RA and ADA are the same, the service animal regulations of the ADA should apply to the RA. The Court of Appeals first examined the history and relationship of the ADA and its precursor, the RA. As to the service animal regulations under the ADA, the Court held that, logically, the service animal regulations are relevant to the RA even though they technically interpret the ADA. This is supported by agency guidance in other contexts from HUD, the Dept. of Justice, and the Dept. of Labor. In essence, the Court now holds that a covered actor must accommodate the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability under the RA just as it must do under the ADA. While the "reasonableness" of that accommodation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the request to be accompanied by a service animal is per se reasonable. Applying that holding to these facts, the Court found that the District Court did not correctly instruct the jury on the relevant law. The error was not harmless, and, despite the school's claim, there was not a high probability that the jury would have ruled in its favor if properly instructed. The judgment was vacated on the RA claim, reversed on the dismissal of the state discrimination claim, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Deadly-weapons finding sufficiently supported where weapon was used or exhibited to humans during commission of animal cruelty. Galindo v. State, --- S.W.3d ----, 2018 WL 4128054 (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2018). Appellant Galindo pleaded guilty to cruelty to nonlivestock animals after stabbing a dog with a knife and a deadly-weapon allegation from the indictment. The trial court accepted his plea, found him guilty, and sentenced him to five years in prison. On appeal, Galindo argues that the deadly-weapon finding is legally insufficient because the weapon was used against a "nonhuman." Appellant relies on the recent decision of Prichard v. State, 533 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017), in which the Texas Court of Appeals held that a deadly-weapon finding is legally insufficient where the sole recipient of the use or exhibition of the deadly weapon is a nonhuman. The court here found the facts distinguishable from Prichard. The court noted that Prichard left open the possibility that a deadly-weapons finding could occur when the weapon was used or exhibited against a human during the commission of an offense against an animal. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Barking dog public nuisance ordinance not unconstitutionally vague. Wallen v. City of Mobile, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3803749 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2018). Wallen appeals her convictions for six counts of violating Mobile, Alabama's public nuisance ordinances. The nuisance convictions stem from an anonymous complaint about multiple barking dogs at Wallen's property. After receiving the tip in March of 2016, an animal control officer drove to the residence, parked across the street, and, as he sat in his car, heard dogs bark continuously for approximately ten minutes. For almost a year, officers received complaints about noise coming from Wallen's house. In May of 2017, Wallen's motion to dismiss the charges was denied, and a jury trial was held where Wallen was found guilty of six counts of violating Mobile's public-nuisance ordinance. On appeal, Wallen first argues that the public nuisance ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad because it regulates without reference to time, place, and manner. However, the court found that Wallen did not establish how the overbreadth doctrine applied to her case and how the ordinance was unconstitutional. As to her next vagueness challenge, Wallen contended that the ordinance had no objective standards to determine whether a dog's barking is disturbing or unreasonable. This court disagreed, finding the statute defines what are "disturbing noises" (which specifically states barking), and other courts previously established that the term "habit" in a dog-barking statute is not vague. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. 

Case Archives


Animal Consortium,  David S. Favre and Thomas Dickinson, 84 Tenn. L. Rev. 893 (2017).

Courtney G. Lee, The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation, 95 Neb. L. Rev. 194-247 (2016).

Randall S. Abate & Jonathan Crowe, From Inside the Cage to Outside the Box: Natural Resources as a Platform for Nonhuman Animal Personhood in the U.S. and Australia, 5 Global J. Animal L. 54 (2017).

David Mahoney, Zuchtvieh-Export Gmbh v. Stadt Kempten: The Tension Between Uniform, Cross-Border Regulation and Territorial Sovereignty, 40 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 363 (2017).

Trophy Hunting Contracts: Unenforceable for Reasons of Public Policy, Myanna Dellinger, 41 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 395 (2016).

Animals as More Than 'Mere Things,' but Still Property: A Call for Continuing Evolution of the Animal Welfare Paradigm, Richard L. Cupp, Jr., University of Cincinnati Law Review, Forthcoming; Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19 (available at SSRN: