Michelle Pardo – Animal Law Developments

June 12, 2026June 12, 2026 by Michelle Pardo

The End of an Era: HUD’s 2026 Guidance Upends Emotional Support Animal Accommodations in Housing

By: Flora Lee

On May 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) permanently rescinded its longstanding guidance on emotional support animals. In its place, the agency announced a sweeping new enforcement standard that fundamentally realigns federal housing law with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For landlords, property managers, colleges, and tenants alike, this is a seismic shift. It closes a gap between housing and other sectors that has persisted for over a decade.

Service Animals vs. Emotional Support Animals: Understanding the Divide

Under the ADA, a service animal is a dog (or a miniature horse under certain circumstances) individually trained to perform tasks for someone with a disability. Those tasks must be directly related to the person’s disability—such as guiding someone who is blind, alerting someone who is deaf, pulling a wheelchair, assisting during a seizure, or calming a person with PTSD through a trained, specific action. Critically, a dog’s mere presence providing comfort does not qualify. The dog must be trained to take a specific action when needed.

Emotional support animals (ESAs), by contrast, provide comfort, companionship, or emotional well-being—but they have not been trained to perform a specific task related to a disability. As the ADA regulations put it: “the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks.” An ESA can be any species and requires no training.

Here is the practical distinction: if a dog is trained to sense an oncoming anxiety attack and respond with a specific action to help avoid it, the dog is a service animal. If the dog simply provides comfort by being present, the dog is an ESA and does not qualify under the ADA. Service animals must be permitted in all public places (restaurants, shops, hospitals, schools, and hotels) even where “no pets” policies apply, with no documentation required. ESAs receive no such protection.

The Housing Exception: How the 2020 Guidance Kept ESAs Alive

The divergence between housing and other sectors was most dramatically illustrated by the airline industry. The Air Carrier Access Act previously permitted ESAs on flights. But in January 2021, the U.S. Department of Transportation revised its rules to limit in-cabin animal access to trained service dogs, eliminating ESA accommodations entirely. After years of what some claimed was widespread abuse, airlines could treat ESAs as ordinary pets.

Housing took a very different path. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) requires landlords to make “reasonable accommodations” so that disabled persons have equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Through sub-regulatory guidance issued in 2008, 2013, and culminating in the January 2020 FHEO Notice, HUD expanded its interpretation far beyond the ADA. The agency declared untrained ESAs “are not pets,” prohibited pet fees for them, and treated denials—or even follow-up questions—as potential fair housing violations.

Although framed as nonbinding best practices, the guidance was widely treated as categorical law, causing housing standards to diverge dramatically from the ADA. An entire online “certification” industry emerged, and by 2026, over 20% of FHEO’s caseload revolved around untrained ESAs.

The 2026 Guidance: A Dramatic Realignment

On May 22, 2026, HUD Assistant Secretary Craig W. Trainor permanently rescinded FHEO’s 2020 notice and adopted a fundamentally new enforcement posture. The impetus was twofold. First, President Trump’s February 2025 executive order directed agencies to “de-prioritize actions to enforce regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of a statute.” Second, a federal court in Henderson v. Five Properties LLC, No. 24-750 (E.D. La. July 16, 2025), found HUD’s prior guidance “unpersuasive.”

The new standard is straightforward: FHEO will now use the ADA’s training requirement to assess animal-related reasonable accommodation complaints under the FHA. In practice, FHEO will find reasonable cause for failure to accommodate only where the animal has been individually trained to perform work or tasks directly related to the complainant’s disability. Requests involving trained assistance animals are “presumptively reasonable.” Requests involving untrained ESAs are not, and FHEO no longer expects housing providers to extend trained-animal accommodations to untrained ESAs as a categorical matter.

Unlike the ADA, which limits service animals to dogs (and miniature horses under certain conditions), the new guidance permits other species—so long as the animal is trained to perform a disability-related task. The operative requirement is training, not mere emotional comfort. The memorandum also directs all open ESA cases to be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis under this new standard.

Practically speaking, how will the legal landscape look different for tenants and residents?

What This Means in Practice: Examples

The Apartment Landlord

Pre 2026 guidance, consider a landlord who owns a building with a “no pets” policy and a standard nonrefundable $500 animal fee for tenants permitted to keep pets. Under the 2020 guidance, if a tenant submitted a letter from a healthcare provider stating she needed her untrained dog for emotional support, the landlord was expected to waive both the no-pet policy and the animal fee. Housing providers could “not charge a deposit, fee, or surcharge for an assistance animal.” Denying the request or even asking follow-up questions risked an FHEO complaint. Under the new standard, that same landlord may treat the untrained ESA request as not presumptively reasonable and apply its standard pet fee.

The Homeowner’s Association

Similarly, prior guidance required a Homeowner’s Association with a dog weight limit to waive this limit to accommodate ESAs. Now, if the resident’s 80-pound dog is not trained to perform a specific disability-related task, the HOA is no longer expected by FHEO to waive its breed or size restrictions as a categorical matter. The HOA may enforce its rules, though it should still evaluate any request on a case-by-case basis and remain mindful of applicable state laws that may provide broader protections.

Important Caveats and What Comes Next

Despite this sweeping change, the memorandum has important limitations. First, it expressly preserves private rights of action. Complainants may still file civil actions in federal or state court within two years. So even though FHEO will not pursue enforcement for untrained ESAs, private litigants can still sue under the FHA.

Second, state and local laws are unaffected. Many jurisdictions have independent fair housing laws that may impose broader ESA obligations than the new federal standard.

Third, HUD intends to engage in formal notice-and-comment rulemaking to harmonize its regulations with the ADA. The agency acknowledges that its animal-related accommodation rules have not been updated in 35 years. This upcoming rulemaking will give all stakeholders an opportunity to shape the permanent framework.

Finally, housing providers should document accommodation decisions carefully and consult counsel, as courts will continue applying fact-specific analyses to FHA claims regardless of HUD’s enforcement posture.

March 17, 2026March 17, 2026 by Michelle Pardo

Coral Reefs Won’t Enjoy “Personhood” Legal Rights in Hawaii

By Michelle C. Pardo

A controversial legislative effort to grant coral reefs and watersheds “legal personhood” in Hawaii has been voted down by the state legislature. The Na Aina no I’a Act (NANI Act) sought to grant the respective ecosystems all “rights, powers, and protections of a legal person” including “the capacity to be represented in legal proceedings” and to “exercise rights and protections under the law.” Had the legislation passed, it would have joined a small but vocal “rights-of-nature” movement to grant ecosystems inherent legal rights.

The environmental benefits of coral reefs and the threats to their vitality by climate change and other damage hardly need to be debated. These important ecosystems already are protected by environmental regulations. However, those advocating for “legal personhood” for reefs, rivers, and forests argue that environmental regulations are too weak or not enforced effectively to provide appropriate protections. The NANI Act would have allowed any individual to bring a lawsuit on behalf of a coral reef or watershed to seek an injunction to stop the harmful activity and order additional relief like restoration plans, monitoring and long-term stewardship obligations.

While granting legal personhood to coral may sound offbeat and perplexing, it would not have been the first time that “nature” would have been recognized as legal persons. In 2017, the Whanganui River in New Zealand was granted legal personhood through the Te Awa Tupua Act, making it the first river in the world to be recognized as a living entity with the same legal rights as people.

Environmental personhood laws typically emerge from indigenous or local community practices and cultural values about nature’s role in society. The personhood status of the Whanganui River brought the “longest running litigation in New Zealand’s history” to an end and paved the way for other countries to follow suit. In 2022, Spain recognized the Mar Menor lagoon in the Iberian Peninsula as having the rights of a legal person. Canada has done so for the Magpie River.

In the United States, to date the movement has not been very successful, although the Klamath River in Northern California was granted personhood rights under tribal law. In 2019, the City of Toledo, Ohio voted to establish the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR) which would have given personhood status to Lake Erie and granted the people of Toledo the right to sue on behalf of Lake Erie. A federal lawsuit defeated LEBOR, despite the law being recognized as a well-intentioned effort for environmental protection.

In holding that the law was unconstitutionally vague, a federal court stated: “LEBOR’s authors failed to make hard choices regarding the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic activity. Instead, they employed language that sounds powerful but has no practical meaning.” According to the court, this language could “trap the innocent [agricultural companies] by not providing fair warning” and invited arbitrary enforcement by prosecutors, judges and juries. Drewes Farms P’ship v. City of Toledo, 441 F. Supp. 3d 551, 556 (N.D. Ohio 2020).

The unsuccessful Hawaii bill, likely suspecting that private citizens with their own ideologies and agendas could burden the judicial system, attempted to qualify the personhood right of action by requiring that any lawsuit brought on behalf of the coral reefs or watersheds be “accompanied by a science-backed claim.” NANI Act, SB 3323, § 4. Nonetheless, it also mandated that courts “liberally grant standing to persons enforcing this chapter, in recognition of their kuleana (responsibility) as stewards of the affected ecosystem person.”

Recently, a Minnesota state senator advocated for SF 3749, which would amend Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 1.148 — the state law governing wild rice — to “recognize the inherent right of uncultivated wild rice to exist and thrive in Minnesota.” The amendment would also require photographs of wild rice to be displayed in the office of the Minnesota Secretary of State.

For now, the rights of nature movement and those that seek to grant nonhuman animals legal personhood, have gained more headlines than legal victories.

March 26, 2025March 26, 2025 by Michelle Pardo

Maine Lobster Dispute Reaches Boiling Point

by Jesse Stavis

On February 6, 2025, Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. of the District of Maine issued an eighty-five-page opinion denying a motion to dismiss filed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation (“Monterey Bay”) in a case concerning allegedly defamatory comments about the environmental impact of Maine’s lobster industry. At issue in Bean Maine Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation were warnings to consumers to avoid Maine lobster due to the industry’s alleged impact on endangered right whales. Read Duane Morris previous blog about this case here.

As part of its conservation efforts, Monterey Bay publishes Seafood Watch, a sustainable seafood advisory list that advises consumers and commercial buyers of seafood on the environmental impact of fishing and trapping operations. Seafood Watch had long rated Maine lobster as a “yellow” product, which means that consumers can feel comfortable buying it but should be aware of certain concerns, but in 2020 it decided to change the rating to red. This relabeling was motivated by concerns about the lobster industry’s impact on right whales, a critically endangered species. Specifically, Seafood Watch pointed to the risk of right whales becoming entangled in the ropes affixed to lobster pots.

The decision to relabel lobster had a major impact on Maine’s billion-dollar lobster industry. Because many commercial buyers rely on Seafood Watch, the relabeling caused a sharp 40% decline in lobster prices.

Reeling from the pinch of the announcement, two industry groups and three lobster companies sued Monterey Bay, alleging that the report that led to the relabeling was defamatory. The plaintiffs argued that the state’s lobster industry had taken a number of measures to protect right whales, including using sinking lines for traps, increasing the number of traps on a given line, and using weak ropes that break away when a whale becomes entangled. They further pointed to the fact that there had not been a single documented case of entanglement in a Maine lobster line since 2004—most entanglements were caused by the thicker lines used by Maine crabbers and Canadian lobstermen. (Notably, during the course of the litigation, a right whale died after becoming entangled in Maine lobster lines; the significance of this development was a major point of contention.)

Defendant Monterey Bay moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. First, the defendant argued that the Maine federal court lacked jurisdiction because its only contact with Maine was maintaining a website that was accessible in that state. The court denied this challenge, noting that a Monterey Bay representative gave a lengthy interview about the report to a Maine-based magazine. In a broader sense, the court reasoned that leveling accusations against the lobster industry would inevitably have an impact on Maine because “Maine is synonymous with lobster.”

Having dispensed with the jurisdictional issue, the court turned to the question of whether plaintiffs had stated an adequate claim of defamation. Here, Monterey Bay made three arguments: (1) that its statements were about the lobster industry in general, and not about the individual plaintiffs; (2) that the statements were protected because they were merely opinions; and (3) that plaintiffs could not show either malice or negligence. The court rejected each of these arguments in turn.

First, the court noted that even though Seafood Watch’s report had not mentioned the individual plaintiffs, it had made claims about the entire industry that would necessarily apply to each plaintiff. Second, the court held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the statements in the report were statements of fact, rather than opinion. Here, the court noted that the report included a number of categorical claims (e.g., “At this time, each fishery using this gear is putting this protected species at risk of extinction; “[M]anagement measures… have not been successful at reducing serious injury and mortality”). A reasonable reader, the court concluded, could take claims like this as objective statements of fact. Third, the court held that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged either malice or negligence. The court noted that while citing sources for a conclusion generally shields a publisher from allegations of defamation, there is an exception where the publisher “deliberately ignores evidence that calls into question his published statements.” Because the lobster industry had shared a wealth of data and counterarguments during the writing of the report, and because Seafood Watch had decided to discount this information, a reasonable jury could find that there was actual malice.

Judge Woodcock’s opinion did not mark the end of the dispute. On March 6, Monterey Bay filed an appeal. If the appeal is rejected, and assuming the parties do not settle the dispute, the case will proceed to discovery.

February 28, 2025February 28, 2025 by Michelle Pardo

USDA Office of Inspector General’s Audit of Dog Breeders: Have Inspectors Been Barking Up the Wrong Tree?

By Michelle C. Pardo

On February 3, 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report of an audit that OIG had performed of the Animal Care Program Oversight of Dog Breeder Inspections. Audit Report 33601-0001-22 (Audit Report).

OIG’s objective? To determine: (1) whether selected dog breeders corrected Animal Welfare Act (AWA) noncompliances previously identified in USDA inspections; and (2) whether the USDA carried out enforcement actions on dog breeders with substantiated AWA violations during the audit period. Audit Report at 3.

January 23, 2025January 24, 2025 by Michelle Pardo

How the Delta Smelt Swam Into a Political Firestorm

by Michelle C. Pardo

Southern Californians have been reeling from the devastation caused by the recent record-breaking wildfires and now face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives. As is the case in the wake of many disasters, a need for answers and accountability as to what caused or contributed to the disaster remains paramount. Just days after the fires started, headlines suggested that a small, nondescript fish – the Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) is to blame for the Palisades and other Los Angeles area wildfires. Did environmental protections for the Delta smelt really cause a statewide water crisis? Or is the Delta Smelt blame game but a fishy theory that has become a political football?

The Delta smelt is a 2-2.8 inch long fish that lives in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta – a place that has been the center of the fight over water in California. Once present in abundance, the smelt began its decline around the mid-20^th century and is now nearing extinction. Most Delta smelt live for only one year and even temporary environmental conditions can greatly affect their population. The largest impact on the fish has occurred after extended periods of drought, which increased the need for California’s cities and farms to pump more delta water – leaving the fish with less fresh, cold water. Other threat factors include disease, competition (including with invasive clams and mussels that were introduced to the river) and predation. Additionally, pumps operated by the state and federal government can suck smelt and other fish into the system.

The Delta Smelt’s Protections

The listing of the Delta Smelt – first, in 1993 as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the state analog, California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and later uplisted to endangered in California (2010) – affects how much water can be pulled from the delta.

When listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA, several protections kick in. The ESA makes it illegal to import, export, take, posses, sell or transport an endangered species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538. It also provides that land or water necessary for the survival of the species may be designated as “critical habitat.” While the designation of critical habitat does not prevent all development or other activities in a designated area, activities that involve a federal permit, license or funding and are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, must undergo analysis and amendments to the project to proceed without adversely affecting critical habitat. Highly-charged disputes often occur when the government uses controversial or methods not ground in accepted science to assess what areas are actually occupied by the species and what physical and biological features a species needs to survive.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “An area may be excluded from critical habitat designation based on economic, national security, or other relevant impacts. In some cases, we may determine that the benefits of excluding it outweigh the benefits of including it.” https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/critical-habitat-fact-sheet.pdf.

While an oversimplification of a complex issue, this is where the competing interests of those cities and farms that have a desperate need for water come head to head with the needs of the Delta smelt and other fish endemic to California to survive.

Swimming Into Political Controversy

California’s water management policies have long clashed with environmentalists, agricultural interests and urban planners. Why? As it turns out, water is universally necessary, but agricultural, fishing, municipal and wildlife uses all have different priorities.

During President Trump’s first Administration, new rules would have allowed farmers to access more water from California’ s largest river systems. Environmentalists claimed it would push the Delta smelt and other species to the brink of extinction. In 2019, two federal agencies issued biological opinions under the ESA that despite finding federal action would not jeopardize listed species, the water projects actually reduce protections for the species and their critical habitat in contravention of the ESA and its purpose. An ESA biological opinion – required when a federal agency is authorizing, funding or carrying out an action – is a document that analyzes how a proposed action may impact listed species and critical habitats. 16 USC § 1536(a)(2). If the federal action is likely to harm or jeopardize the listed species, the government may propose alternatives that will minimize the effect on the listed species, or scrap the project. 16 USC § 1536 (b)(1)(3)(A).

In 2020, California sued the federal government, alleging that the biological opinions “failed to take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental impacts of planned the federal water project.” The lawsuit further alleged:

The Central Valley Project harms ESA-listed fish species in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River watersheds by, for example, directly taking fish at the project’s South Delta pumping facility, redirecting fish from their migratory pathways, and altering the species’ natural habitat. Habitat alterations resulting from project operations include changes to river flow, hydrology, salinity, and water temperature.

Becerra v. Ross et al., No. 3:20-cv-01299 (N.D. Cal) at p. 8.

The Trump Administration described the lawsuit as a “catastrophic halt” of “enormous amounts of water to flow from the snow melt and rainwater in rivers in North California to beneficial use in the Central Valley and Southern California.”

Fast forward to January 7, 2025, when parts of Southern California was hit with the most devastating wildfires on record. The wildfires – and what contributed to them – has revived this contentious debate. The Delta smelt – previously described by President Trump as “an essentially worthless fish” was targeted as the culprit for why farmers and cities had limitations on the amount of water they could receive.

But in addition to the water needed by farmers and major cities, endangered and threatened species like the Delta smelt require their own flow of fresh water, known as “outflow.” Without the needed outflow, salt water can move upstream making the delta waters too brackish and potentially harm certain species of fish. To counter this risk, water must be allowed to flow out of the system. The flows needed to protect the region’s ecosystem – which help support migration and spawning of delta smelt, salmon, longfin smelt and other fish species, – account for about 10% of all available flows. Some have called the wildlife-protection outflow as having an insignificant role in water projects.

Governor Newsom’s office rebuffed President Trump’s claims, denying that President Trump ever asked him to sign a “water restoration declaration” and others insist that the Delta smelt is not the source of the controversy regarding water projects.

On January 20, 2025, just hours into his second term, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to route more water from across the state. In a Memorandum to the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior titled: “Putting People over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to Provide Water to Southern California” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-people-over-fish-stopping-radical-environmentalism-to-provide-water-to-southern-california/, President Trump directed the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to:

“immediately start” the work from his first Administration to “route more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to other parts of the state for use by the people there who desperately need a reliable water supply.”

The Memo requires the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to report to the President regarding progress made in implementing policies in the memo and providing recommendations regarding future implementation.

Governor Gavin Newsom and others in California regulatory agencies have disputed that the Delta smelt and its environmental protections are to blame for water shortages in the state (while also disputing the fact or extent of water shortages in the first place). Some scientists insist that hydrology and outflow to ensure freshwater for human use has much more of an effect on the projects ability to deliver water than the current ESA safeguards. Regardless of who is right, President Trump has suggested that federal disaster aid to recover from the wildfires may be conditioned upon California cooperating with federal government water policies, making it difficult for the state to cling to existing water policy.

One thing remains clear: as urban development continues, and natural resources grow scarce, the clash between a state or municipality’s ability to deliver necessary resources in a manner that does not risk extinction of threatened or endangered species will likely continue.

November 20, 2024 by Michelle Pardo

Washington State Enacts World’s First Legislation to Ban Octopus Farming

By guest blogger:

Madison Gutzman, 2026 J.D. Candidate, Texas A&M University School of Law

Washington House Bill 1153, which prohibits the farming of octopuses in Washington State, was signed into law on March 13th, 2024. Washington leads the charge in legislation of this kind, but California and Hawaii are not far behind. Representative Strom Peterson sponsored the bill to keep octopus farms from hurting the environment and causing the suffering of octopuses. Rep. Peterson argues it is well past time to prohibit octopus farming. However, no octopus farms currently exist in the world. So, what sparked this surge in legislation?

Construction of the world’s first octopus farm has been proposed in Gran Canaria, Spain. Controversy sparked after an animal rights group released confidential plans behind the farm’s operation. The seafood company behind the farm had announced scientific advancements in the breeding and captivity of octopuses that would lead to commercial farming operations. Claire Marshall, World’s first octopus farm proposals alarm scientists, BBC (Mar. 15, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64814781. Scientists and animal activists are concerned about the wellbeing of octopuses in farming conditions. Octopuses are clever, solitary creatures who typically thrive in coral reef systems. The company’s plans include 10-15 octopuses living in one cubic meter of tank while being fed a dry pellet food. Id. This differs from the live fish they usually eat in the open ocean. Additionally, octopuses are incredibly territorial and young octopuses can be prone to cannibalism when in close quarters. The company estimates a 10-15% mortality rate among the farm raised octopuses. Id.

Perhaps the most controversial practice in the proposed operation is the method of killing these octopuses. The seafood company proposes an “ice slurry” method that would require octopuses to be put into below-freezing water until they die. Some scientists have argued this is a slow, painful death for a creature recognized by the UK’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act as “sentient beings.” Id. Given the objection to such practices, why is octopus farming a topic of U.S. legislation?

The number of octopuses caught each year has increased tenfold in the last 70 years. Id. As the demand for octopus grows, efforts to farm these sentient cephalopods aren’t likely to cease any time soon. U.S. legislation banning octopus farming within our borders is a win for aquatic animal rights groups. While it is unclear whether or not octopus farms would ever make their way to American soil one day, the United States is one of the biggest importers of octopus. Washington’s legislation only bans actual farming, so the state might still contribute to the demand for octopus farms overseas. However, the OCTOPUS Act of 2024, a bipartisan bill introduced by the founders and co-chairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus, would also prohibit imports of farm-raised octopus from other countries. S. 4810, 118th Cong. (2023-2024). Federal legislation in the United States would undoubtedly have a greater financial impact on octopus farming operations in Spain. Foreign countries might be deterred from continuing the costly research and creation of octopus farms if a major importer isn’t in the market.

From humble beginnings as a Washington house bill, an octopus farming ban could be a step toward more animal welfare focused legislation for cephalopods. Aquatic farming in general has risen in popularity over the last few decades, so it is only natural that animal legislation adapts to market trends and consumer demands. As humans continue to deplete natural aquatic resources, we’re likely to see an increase in demand for other farm raised aquatic animals as well. This legislation is a peek into where people draw the line in aquatic farming today, but this line is sure to continue to move as these practices evolve.

Outside of this legislation’s impact on animal law, there is a potential human cost to such animal welfare legislation. Washingtonians criticized the introduction of this legislation because they felt it was a little tone deaf to the humanitarian needs of the state. Homelessness, opioid addiction, violent crime, and property crime are rampant issues in Washington. While Washington residents are generally very environmentally conscious, they denounced the use of legislators’ time and effort being spent on drafting highly proactive bills banning proposed animal farming practices. The octopus farming ban was proposed around the same time as a bill banning Styrofoam takeout containers, so residents may have been hyperaware of legislation they felt was not as important to the human welfare crisis. While this concern may not be as prevalent at the federal level, there is always a concern that legislative resources are being spent on issues that miss the mark in the eyes of the people.

By any measure, this type of legislation no doubt raises competing and evolving issues related to market pressures, sustainability and animal welfare, that will continue to be debated in the future.

April 6, 2024 by Michelle Pardo

USDA and DOJ Announce Top Priorities for Civil Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act

By Michelle C. Pardo and Brian Pandya

Last month, the Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the USDA Office of General Counsel (OGC) announced the issuance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on civil judicial enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). What does this mean for USDA licensees and registrants? Our Q&A breaks it down. Continue reading “USDA and DOJ Announce Top Priorities for Civil Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act”

November 10, 2023November 10, 2023 by Michelle Pardo

Sonoma County Jury Convicts Animal Rights Leader In Farm Trespass Case

by Michelle C. Pardo

Wayne Hsiung, the co-founder of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), a Berkeley, California based animal activist group, was found guilty of two counts of misdemeanor trespass and one count of felony conspiracy to trespass on November 2, following a two month jury trial. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on a second felony conspiracy charge, resulting in a mistrial on that charge. Hsiung’s conviction followed six days of deliberations by a jury in Santa Rosa, California. Hsiung was taken into custody immediately following the verdict. Continue reading “Sonoma County Jury Convicts Animal Rights Leader In Farm Trespass Case”

June 23, 2023August 8, 2023 by Michelle Pardo

D.C. Circuit Rejects National Marine Fisheries Service’s “Egregiously Wrong” Decision on Right Whales

By Michelle C. Pardo

On June 16, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or Service), which licenses and regulates fisheries in federal waters, was not permitted to give the “benefit of the doubt” to endangered species or rely on worst-case scenarios or pessimistic assumptions in preparing biological opinions required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Maine Lobstermen’s Association v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D.C. Cir. June, 16, 2023) (slip opinion). Continue reading “D.C. Circuit Rejects National Marine Fisheries Service’s “Egregiously Wrong” Decision on Right Whales”

June 21, 2023June 23, 2023 by Michelle Pardo

Breaking Down the FWS’s Interim Rule Implementing the Big Cat Public Safety Act

by Michelle C. Pardo

On June 12, 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published an Interim Rule that amends the implementing regulations for the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA) by “incorporating the requirements” of the Big Cat Public Safety Act (BCPSA). See 88 Fed. Reg. 38358 (6/12/2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/12/2023-12636/regulations-to-implement-the-big-cat-public-safety-act. The amended regulations — which are now in effect as of June 12, 2023 — can be found within the Federal Register publication and at 50 CFR Part 14. Continue reading “Breaking Down the FWS’s Interim Rule Implementing the Big Cat Public Safety Act”