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

January - February 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

Michigan court declines to extend writ of habeas corpus to seven chimpanzees held by Michigan zoo. Nonhuman Rts. Project, Inc. v. DeYoung Fam. Zoo, LLC, No. 369247, 2025 WL 2957821 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2025). This concerns a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of seven chimpanzees detained at a private zoo. The central legal question was whether chimpanzees qualify as "persons" capable of possessing a right to "liberty" cognizable under the common-law writ. The court found that animals, irrespective of their cognitive abilities, have traditionally been regarded as property under the law and are incapable of bearing the social responsibilities and legal duties inherent in personhood. The petitioner's argument for a judicial expansion of the common law to recognize animal personhood was rejected, with the court emphasizing that such a fundamental departure from established legal principles falls within the exclusive purview of the state supreme court. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's summary denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Idaho appellate court affirms property status for pets and limits recovery of emotional distress damages for pets to NIIED or IIED, and not conversion. Garshelis v. Bennett, No. 51782, 2026 WL 31347 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2026). This appeal concerns the valuation of a companion animal and the availability of emotional distress damages arising from its wrongful death. The plaintiff sought to recover for the shooting and disposal of her dog, Stanley, advancing multiple tort theories including conversion, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The central legal issue was the proper measure of damages for the loss of a pet, which the court resolved by affirming that, under Idaho law, pets are considered property. The court adhered to precedent limiting the recovery of emotional distress damages for the loss of a pet strictly to the independent torts of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and not through property-based torts like conversion. While the district court's nominal damages award for intentional infliction of emotional distress was upheld, its dismissal of the negligent infliction claim was reversed due to insufficient findings. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings specifically on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

Court orders stay of discovery pending likely dismissal of novel pro se action from taxpayer seeking recognition of her golden retriever as a "dependent" for tax purposes. Reynolds v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., Slip copy, 2025 WL 3514102 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2025). This unpublished memorandum order addresses a pro se action seeking novel legal recognition for domestic companion animals under the Internal Revenue Code. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her golden retriever, alleges constitutional violations stemming from the IRS’s categorical exclusion of animals from qualifying as "dependents" for tax purposes, asserting claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The court, analyzing a motion to stay discovery pending a motion to dismiss, finds the plaintiff’s claims facially unmeritorious, noting the Internal Revenue Code explicitly defines a dependent as a human "qualifying child" or "qualifying relative." Consequently, the court concludes the defendant has made a strong showing that the action is unlikely to survive dismissal, and that a stay of discovery is warranted to avoid unnecessary burden. The disposition of the motion is to grant the stay of discovery pending resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss.

Court denies motion to suppress evidence obtained by warrantless drone flight related to 67 mistreated dogs. Bradford v. State, --- S.E.2d ----, 2025 WL 2673082 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2025). In this interlocutory appeal from a civil forfeiture proceeding, the Court addressed the application of the independent source doctrine to a warrant predicated on observations of animal cruelty, where the initial investigation involved a warrantless drone flight over the appellant's property. The Court held the warrant was valid, as the affidavit was based solely on evidence independently obtained during a subsequent in-person visit, which was initiated by a separate citizen complaint about a loose and malnourished dog and during which officers, from a lawful vantage point on a public road, observed two dogs in the front yard in conditions indicative of cruelty and heard a large number of dogs barking from the rear of the property, leading them to discover approximately 67 mistreated and malnourished dogs. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed, the disposition being that the warrant was supported by an independent source of probable cause unrelated to the prior drone overflight.

Case Archives