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

June News

U.S. Endangered Species Act turns 50 years old. In June 2023, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), arguably one of the most successful animal protection laws, turns 50. Despite this, Congress is actively seeking to overturn some protective mechanisms issued under the Act. According to Michigan Public Radio, the U.S. Senate voted to overturn the ESA three times using the Congressional Review Act on issues involving listing of the northern long-eared bat and habitat rules from 2020. The northern long-eared bat population has been dramatically affected by white nose syndrome, a fungal infection that interrupts bat hibernation. In addition, the Trump Administration issued a last-minute rule that restricted how habitat could be defined, effectively disregarding changing habitat due to climate change and other factors affecting species range. The purposed congressional action would put a stop to the Biden Administration's efforts to undo that eleventh hour Trump rule. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are more than 1,300 species listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA.

New York Senate considers “Primate Protection Act,” which would outlaw use of primates in most entertainment venues. New York Senate Bill 6905, sponsored by James Skoufis, states its purpose "is to safeguard all primates from the physical and psychological harm inflicted upon them by living conditions, treatment, and cruel methods that are necessary to train them to perform in entertainment acts." The bill recognizes that primates are "highly intelligent, social animals with complex emotional and cognitive needs" and the harsh training methods and conditions associated with use in entertainment subjects them to "physical and psychological harm." The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture. Only a few other states prohibit the use of primates in circuses and other traveling animals venues, including California, Colorado, Hawaii (indirectly by banning import), and New Jersey. In 2021, the Traveling Exotic Animal and Public Safety Protection Act (TEAPSPA) (H.R. 5999) was introduced in the U.S. House, which would amend the Animal Welfare Act to ban the use of wild or exotic animals in traveling animal acts. So far, no further action has been taken.

Curious what animal-related laws were added or amended in 2022? To find the answer, check out our Table of Statutory Amendments for 2022. Overall, there were fewer changes than in past years. Laws concerning animals used in research were a hot topic again with Iowa and Massachusetts passing “beagle freedom” laws and two others banning animal testing for cosmetics. Importantly, Maryland became the second state to ban cat declawing. Several states enhanced laws requiring certain entities to scan impounded pets for microchips. However, animal protection and anti-cruelty laws received only minor attention. Was this year an anomaly or has significant change within animal law reached a legislative plateau?

News archives

Cases

U.S. Supreme Court holds California Prop 12 on cruel confinement of pigs does not violate dormant Commerce Clause. Nat'l Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. ------- S.Ct. ----, No. 21-468, 2023 WL 3356528 (U.S. May 11, 2023). Following the adoption of California’s Proposition 12, two organizations – the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation (Petitioners) – filed this lawsuit on behalf of the members of these organizations that are in the business of raising and processing pigs for the sale of pork meat. Petitioners allege that Proposition 12, which forbids the sale of whole pork meat in California that is made from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are confined in a cruel manner, violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by placing an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. Under Proposition 12, confinement of pigs is cruel if it prevents a pig from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. Petitioners allege that the cost of compliance with Proposition 12 will increase production costs, but concede that those costs will fall on both California and out-of-state pork producers. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, rejecting petitioners’ arguments that Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court found no violation of the dormant Commerce Clause because: (1) petitioners concede that Proposition 12 did not implicate the antidiscrimination principle, because it imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers that it imposes on out-of-state pork producers, and (2) petitioners’ reliance on the Pike line of cases to prevent a state from regulating the sale of a consumer good within its borders on nondiscriminatory terms was rejected, as that line of cases had never yielded such a result.

New York defendant's 10-year ban on possessing animals left in place on appeal. People v. Minutolo, 215 A.D.3d 1260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). Defendant appealed from a judgment convicting him of animal cruelty in violation of New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 353. The conviction stemmed from defendant repeatedly striking one of his dogs out of "frustration" after the dog failed to come when called. On appeal, defendant called into question the authentication of surveillance video from a nearby gas station showing him striking the dog. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division found the portion of surveillance video showing defendant repeatedly striking one of his dogs was sufficiently authenticated. Further, other evidence established that he "cruelly beat" the dog by punching the dog with a closed fist three to five times. Finally, defendant's challenge to the penalty imposed under Agriculture and Markets Law § 374 (8)(c) that prohibits defendant from owning or otherwise having custody of any other animals for 10 years was rejected by the court. The judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Dog owner not liable for fall-related injuries suffered by pedestrian after dog chased ball into street. Murga v. Yarusso, 215 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). This New York case involved action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained after defendant's dog allegedly ran into street and pushed the plaintiff pedestrian to the ground. The plaintiff described the dog as acting like a "big puppy" and the dog did not bite the plaintiff. In contrast, the defendant testified that the dog was chasing a ball in the defendant's front yard and did not actually go in the street. Rather, defendant asserts that plaintiff tripped upon seeing the dog in the yard. The complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep the dog under control and to take protective measures knowing of the aggressive propensity of the dog. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted the defendant-owner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff also suggested that defendant might be liable for throwing the ball which caused the dog to run in the street and knock the plaintiff down. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the plaintiff cannot recover under such a theory, as New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for an owner's alleged negligence in the handling of a dog. The summary judgment was affirmed as the court found the owner was not liable to pedestrian for injuries sustained.

Case Archives