|The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule||Steven M. Wise, Elizabeth Stein, Monica Miller & Sarah Stone||67 Syracuse L. Rev. 31 (2017||This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged.||Article|
|Brief Summary of Horsemeat for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This brief summary describes the history of horsemeat consumption, focusing specifically on the U.S. It analyzes the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that occurred in 2007 as a result of changes in federal appropriations. Recently, a change in appropriations brought the slaughter measure to the forefront. The legislative state of horse slaughter for human consumption remains uncertain.
|Detailed Discussion of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
The debate over horse slaughter is a composite of agricultural industry, animal welfare, constitutional, environmental, health, and regulatory concerns. Part II of this paper addresses the history of and cultural taboo ascribed to horsemeat consumption. Part III presents federal and state laws, administrative regulations and guidelines, major court cases, and proposed and pending legislation related to horse slaughter. Part IV describes associated issues, policy, and advocacy resulting from and effecting horse slaughter in the United States.
|Overview of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This overview focuses on horsemeat for human consumption, with a special look at its status in the U.S. It details the expiration of the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that existed from 2007 to 2011. Recently, federal appropriations omitted the horsemeat inspection defunding provision, allowing the resumption of horse slaughter in the U.S.
|Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption||Christen Wiser||
Brief Summary of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption
|Animal Rights Extremism as Justification for Restricting Access to Government Records||Christopher Wlach||67 Syracuse L. Rev. 191 (2017)||In the animal rights and animal welfare movements, activists have likewise used FOIA and state open records laws for their own ends. This section first discusses the purpose and general structure of FOIA and state open records laws, and then looks at how animal rights and animal welfare activists have used these laws in pursuing their causes.||Article|
|SHARK LAWS WITH TEETH: HOW DEEP CAN U.S. CONSERVATION LAWS CUT INTO GLOBAL TRADE REGULATIONS?||Kaitlin M. Wojnar||19 Animal L. 185 (2012)||Controversy surrounding application of the Shark & Fishery Conservation Act of 2010 (Shark Conservation Act) reflects a culmination of competing interests between environmental conservation and international free trade. Non-governmental organizations are pressuring the United States (U.S.) government to use the Shark Conservation Act to impose trade sanctions against countries that do not have specific regulations on shark finning. The implementation of such import bans, however, could negatively impact the nation’s relationships with some of its principal trade partners and violate international obligations under multilateral trade treaties. This Note proposes that the U.S. cannot impose such an embargo on shark products without first laying a foundation for its actions in international custom or treaty.||Article|
|McLIBEL||David J. Wolfson||5 Animal L. 21 (1999) (pdf version)||In 1991, McDonald's sued two pro se defendants in England for defamation in relation to, among other things, allegations that McDonald's was culpably responsible for cruel common farming practices. The case took seven years and the appeals still continue, Though McDonald's spent over $16 million on legal representation and had significant legal advantages, it lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the background and holding of "McLibel" in relation to cruel common farming practices, its unique legal context, and the impact of the holding on animal law in general and state anti-cruelty laws in the United States. In addition, he explores the contradiction that McLibel exposes: the fact that a common farming practice can be found to be cruel in the view of a reasonable person while legal pursuant to an anti-cruelty statute.||Article|
|BEYOND THE LAW: AGRIBUSINESS AND THE SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF ANIMALS RAISED FOR FOOD OR FOOD PRODUCTION||David J. Wolfson||2 Animal L. 123 (1996) (pdf version)||Animals raised for food or food production in the United States are, in large part, excluded from legal protection against cruelty. This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to such animals and documents numerous recent amendments to state anticruelty statutes that have placed the definition of cruelty to farm animals in the hands of the farming community. Mr. Wolfson argues that these amendments contradict the historical purpose of anticruelty statutes originally enacted to protect farm animals. The article also contrasts this regressive legal development with progressive European legislation. Finally, Mr. Wolfson outlines a path for reform.||Article|
|Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals||David J. Wolfson||2 ANIMALL 123 (1996) (html version)||
This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to animals raised for food production, and outlines a path for reform.