11.28.2022

Animal Law: Animal Law Basics

AGENDA
  1. Today: an intro to some animal law basics
  2. Wednesday and Friday: Shelby Bobosky, Esq.
  3. No office hours today


ETHICS VS. LAW
  • ANIMAL ETHICS
    • Right and wrong, obligations, rights, moral requirements, concerning animals
    • Apart from any particular legal system such as that of the US, China, Spain, Texas, or whatever. 
    • Sample question: Is it wrong to use animals in biomedical research? 
  • ANIMAL LAW
    • Rights and protections that either are or should be encoded in laws and enforced by courts
    • In a particular nation or state. 
    • Sample questions: Should it be illegal in the US to use animals in biomedical research? How are research animals protected under US law? Should existing law be strengthened?
  • ETHICS V. LAW
    • There are connections between ethics and law but they are not the same thing!


CASS SUNSTEIN, "Can Animals Sue?
  • Harvard law professor, worked in Obama Administration
  • Article, annotated
  • Main ideas--
    1. Distinguishes ambitious vs. modest strategies for increasing legal protection of animals
    2. Gives overview of existing animal law
    3. Sunstein's "modest" proposal


1. Ambitious vs. modest strategies for achieving more protection of animals
  • Ambitious: expand rights for animals
  • Modest: no new rights, just new ways of supporting existing rights

Ambitious: expand rights for animals
  1. Reform existing laws (we discussed reforming Animal Welfare Act)
  2. Develop new legal status for animals--make them persons, not property (Next time!!)

Modest strategy (Sunstein)
  • Diagnosis: main problem is lack of enforcement of existing law
    • not enough inspectors, police, prosecutors
  • Solution: more private lawsuits as opposed to more criminal prosecution





2. Overview of existing animal law

FEDERAL LAW: ANIMAL WELFARE ACT (overview and lab animal highlights)
  • Lab animals: applies, but not to mice, rats, birds, cold-blooded animals 
  • Farm animals: doesn't apply except during transportation; doesn't apply to rodeos
  • Zoos and aquariums: applies to warm-blooded animals, doesn't apply to birds
  • Pets: applies to those in pets stores and during transport
MORE FEDERAL LAWS:
  • Endangered Species Act (here)
  • Humane Slaughter Act (here)
    • covers "livestock"--no laws covering birds or fish
  • Marine Mammal Protection Act (here)
  • Horse Protection Act (here)
STATE LEVEL: ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS (example: Texas)
  • Pets and wild animals: applies to those you have taken into your custody
    • most provide food and shelter and not abandon
    • can only kill with owner approval
    • third offense is a felony
  • Farm animals: "generally accepted" practices are legal
  • Lab animals: doesn't apply at all
  • Hunting: "generally accepted" practices are legal
  • Zoos, aquariums, rodeos: doesn't apply 
NEW STATE LAWS (not covered by Sunstein):
  • California Proposition 2 (here)



2. Sunstein's modest proposal: more lawsuits to secure enforcement of existing animal protection laws


 Human plaintiffs -- goal is to help animals but you sue on your own behalf
Doctrine of standing: you can't sue in a federal court just because you didn't like something you saw at the Dallas World Aquarium or Rodeo or an animal lab.  You have to show that (a) you were injured, and (b) "your injury is 'arguably within the zone of interests' protected or regulated by the statute in question," and (c) "you must show that your injury is not widely generalized, that is, it must not be shared by all other citizens." (Sunstein p. 255)

(A)  Informational injury – sue Aquarium for hiding information about some of the exhibits (hypothetical example)

 

(B) Competitive injury – e.g. an AWA-compliant lab sues a non-compliant lab because the compliant lab suffers a financial disadvantage


(C) Aesthetic injury – e.g. worker sues company for having to see animals suffer in a way that's prohibited under AWA.  You sue your neighbor because you constantly have to look at his neglected dog.

Are these lawsuits now possible?

  • To some extent, yes
  • He's arguing that laws should be amended to make them more possible 




Animal plaintiffs -- there isn't always a human plaintiff, so we ought to permit animals themselves to sue



  1. Human lawyer would represent animal plaintiff--the injured party
  2. Same as when a child sues with adult legal representation
  3. Doesn't mean the animal is considered a person. Non-persons can already sue--corporations, the estate of a deceased person
  4. Could only sue for injuries prohibited under existing law
  5. Remedy would have to be meaningful to the individual animal suing