Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE CHURCH OF ANIMAL LIBERATION: ANIMAL RIGHTS AS ‘RELIGION’ UNDER THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE | Bruce Friedrich | 21 Animal L. 65 (2014) | In this Article, I contend that a belief in animal liberation qualifies as religion under the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of the United States Constitution. Thus, every time a prison warden, public school teacher or administrator, or government employer refuses to accommodate the ethical belief of an animal liberationist, they are infringing on that person’s religious freedom, and they should have to satisfy the same constitutional or statutory requirements that would adhere were the asserted interest based on more traditional religious exercise. One possible solution to the widespread violations of the First Amendment rights of animal liberationists would be the incorporation of a ‘Church of Animal Liberation’ under the Internal Revenue Code (as a proper church or as a religious organization). This would help to protect the free exercise rights of those who believe in animal rights because it would give them a religious organization to reference—with articles of incorporation that align with the jurisprudential definition of religion—in making their requests for religious accommodation. First, this Article discusses the constitutional definition of religion, what it means to believe in animal liberation, and animal liberation beliefs that circuit court precedent already recognizes as religious. Then, it discusses how animal liberation-based free exercise conflicts would play out in practice (e.g., identifying when infringing on the rights of animal liberationists would require strict scrutiny and when it would not). Lastly, this Article suggests that incorporating a group (e.g., a ‘Church of Animal Liberation’) as a religious organization under the Internal Revenue Code might help to secure constitutional rights for animal liberationists, and explains what would be required to incorporate such an organization. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Feral Cat Legal Issues | David Fry | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article addresses three primary legal questions. First, the article discusses issues related to ownership of and responsibility for feral cats, analyzing the treatment of ownership and responsibility under both feral cat statutes and common law. Second, the article addresses the question of whether feral cat keepers or caretakers can be held civilly liable for the actions of feral cats. Third, the article discusses the ways in which feral cat keepers or caretakers may be exposed to criminal liability for abandonment, neglect, or failure to comply with state or local animal ownership requirements. |
Article |
| Brief Summary of Feral Cat Legal Issues | David Fry | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This overview discusses state laws that impact feral cats. The article analyzes the concept of "ownership" as it concerns feral cats, and outlines some of the legal considerations for feral cat caretakers. |
Article |
| Feral Cat Legal Issues | David Fry |
Brief Summary of Feral Cat Legal Issues
|
Topical Introduction | |
| 2001 Legislative Review | Laurie Fulkerson | 8 Animal L. 259 (2001) |
This article presents an overview of 2001 animal-related legislation. |
Article |
| Canned Hunts: Unfair at Any Price | Fund for Animals | http://fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=338&table=documents |
This article explores the issues surrounding "canned hunts." Section I provides an introduction and overview; explores the ethical objections to canned hunts based on standards generally accepted by the sport hunting community; raises questions about the appropriate legal analogy that should be applied to canned hunts; and discusses the serious animal health and public health issues raised by canned hunts. Section II catalogs the relevant statutes and regulations of each state with an example of a model ordinance relating to the regulation of canned hunts. |
Article |
| Canned Hunts: The Other Side of the Fence | Fund for Animals | http://fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=42&table=documents |
This article, reprinted with permission from The Fund for Animals' website, explains the activity referred to as 'canned hunting.' |
Article |
| Detailed Discussion of North Dakota Great Ape Laws | Erin Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Great Ape law in North Dakota. Generally, in North Dakota, if a person obtains the correct license, he or she can keep an ape as a pet, an exhibitor, a zoo, or for any other non-prohibited purpose.The state board of animal health has categorized great apes as nontraditional livestock. In order to possess nontraditional livestock, including a great ape, a private owner must first obtain a license.Finally, great apes are generally protected from intentional abuse and neglect under the state’s anti-cruelty law. Great apes receive very limited protections under Montana’s endangered species law. | Article |
| Brief Summary of Gray Wolf Legal Challenges from 2005 to the Present | E Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This brief summary discusses the ongoing legal battle between environmental groups and the federal government concerning the gray wolf's status on the Endangered Species List since 2005. |
Article |
| Overview of Gray Wolf Legal Challenges from 2005 to the Present | Erin Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Since 2005, the gray wolf's status on the Endangered Species List has been caught in an ongoing legal battle between environmental groups and the federal government. In some regions of the country, the gray wolf remains listed under the Endangered Species Act as endangered. In other regions, the gray wolf has been downlisted to threatened or completely delisted. |
Article |
