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 |
| MEAT LABELING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS | Bruce Friedrich | 20 Animal L. 79 (2013) | The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates meat labeling under the statutory authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The FMIA’s labeling preemption clause prohibits labeling requirements beyond federal requirements, and would thus preclude state causes of action on the basis of deceptive labels that were properly approved under federal law. Through the eyes of Kat, a hypothetical consumer concerned with the origins of the meat she purchases for her family, this Article argues that consumers should be able to pursue state law claims based on fraudulent animal welfare labels on packages of meat. This is true for two reasons: first, the FMIA’s labeling preemption only covers the USDA’s statutory scope of authority, which does not include on-farm treatment of animals; and second, both FMIA and a state cause of action would require the same thing—a non-fraudulent label. However, even if a court did find that a state cause of action based on a fraudulent label was preempted, consumer plaintiffs would have other avenues through which to pursue their claims. | 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 | |
| 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 |
| 2001 Legislative Review | Laurie Fulkerson | 8 Animal L. 259 (2001) |
This article presents an overview of 2001 animal-related legislation. |
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 |
| 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 |
| Detailed Discussion of the Gray Wolf's Change in Status on The Endangered Species List from 2005 to the Present | Erin Furman | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper focuses on the changes that have occurred from 2005 to the present in each DPS, including three non-essential experimental populations located in Yellowstone, Central Idaho, and the southwestern U.S.; the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS; and the Western Great Lakes DPS. |
Article |
| Gray Wolf Legal Challenges: 2005 to Present | Erin Furman |
Brief Summary of Gray Wolf Legal Challenges
|
Topical Introduction |
