Research Animals
Displaying 61 - 70 of 141
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Krasno v. Mnookin | The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, holding that the interactive comment threads on the University's social media posts constituted limited public forums under First Amendment jurisprudence, and that the University's "off-topic" comment restriction was neither reasonable nor viewpoint-neutral as applied to plaintiff Madeline Krasno's animal rights advocacy. Krasno, a former employee at the University's primate research facility, had repeatedly posted comments criticizing the school's animal testing practices, which the University systematically suppressed while allowing other unrelated comments to remain visible. The University admitted to hiding even an on-topic comment about animal testing in response to a post about veterinary care, while maintaining keyword filters that specifically targeted terms associated with animal rights criticism. The court found that Krasno had standing to bring her as-applied challenge and that the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity permitted her claims for prospective injunctive relief against the University's ongoing use of keyword filters, though sovereign immunity barred claims related to past moderation actions. Applying forum analysis, the court determined the comment threads were not government speech but rather limited public forums where restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, and it held the University's vague "off-topic" rule failed this standard by disproportionately targeting terms associated with anti-animal-testing viewpoints and lacking objective criteria for moderation decisions. The dissent, authored by Judge Easterbrook, argued the comment threads constituted government speech akin to a curated alumni magazine, entitling the University to editorial control without First Amendment scrutiny. The appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Krasno. |
| LA - Research - LSA-R.S. 51:771 | This Louisiana set of laws, enacted in 2022, makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale in this state a cosmetic that utilized cosmetic animal testing during the development or manufacture of the cosmetic, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted by the manufacturer, any supplier of the manufacturer, or any person or business hired or contracted by the manufacturer. Limited exemptions exist. A manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation commits a civil violation punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for the first day of each violation and an additional fine of $500 for each day that each violation continues. |
| LEE ROACH AND ROACH LABORATORIES, INC. |
Company which produces antiserum for medical diagnostic tests by injecting rabbits and other live animals with antigens and then extracting their blood is research facility within meaning of Act. |
| Lesser v. Epsy |
Owner had a rabbitry, and the rabbits were sold for scientific research. Inspection of the rabbitry without a warrant occurred, and Owner claimed that his constitutional rights were violated. Search without a warrant was appropriate because any deficiencies could have been easily concealed if notice of a search was provided to the Owner. |
| Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. | After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals. |
| Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. (in Hebrew) | After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals. |
| Longhi v. APHIS |
|
| MA - Cambridge - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.12: Care and Use of Laboratory Animals) |
|
| MA - Ecoterrorism - § 104B. Research animals; unauthorized removal | This Massachusetts statute makes it a crime to enter any premises in which animals are being housed or used in research by a research institution and, without authority, cause damage and/or trespass. |
| Marino v. University of Florida |
|