Animal Law Developments

September 7, 2018September 10, 2018 by Michelle Pardo

“What’s Your Beef”? Legal Challenge to Missouri’s New Meat Advertising Law

by Michelle C. Pardo

Animal rights and environmental activists have long led the charge into federal and state courts with consumer fraud actions challenging representations made about animal products, ostensibly arguing that consumers are misled by animal welfare claims on labels, but often with the ultimate goal of removing from a label something that the activists fear is influencing consumers’ purchase of an animal product.

Missouri’s new, first-in-the-nation law (amending its prior meat advertising law) prohibits companies from “misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested livestock or poultry.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 265.494(7). This amendment may put animal and environmental activist groups on their heels as it changes the way that products not derived from animals can be labeled.

Continue reading ““What’s Your Beef”? Legal Challenge to Missouri’s New Meat Advertising Law”

September 7, 2018 by Rebecca E. Bazan

A Bipartisan Challenge to Animal Experimentation

An advocacy group called the White Coat Waste Project has filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) has wrongfully withheld documents related to experiments conducted on cats at its Beltsville, Maryland Agricultural Research Center. White Coat Waste Project v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 1:18-cv-02070 (D.D.C.). Using the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the White Coat Waste Project requested records related to the USDA’s “Toxoplasmosis in Cats” study, including veterinary records for all cats and kittens used in the experiment, as well as a complete project budget. Having received no response to its FOIA request within the statutory time limit, the White Coat Waste Project filed the lawsuit seeking a declaration that the USDA’s failure to respond to its FOIA request was unlawful, ordering USDA to produce the requested records, and for its attorneys’ fees. Continue reading “A Bipartisan Challenge to Animal Experimentation”

September 5, 2018 by John M. Simpson

Canadian Court Dismisses Sasquatch Case

by John M. Simpson.

In a case raising unusual issues (to say the least), a trial court in the Canadian province of British Columbia recently dismissed a case in which the plaintiff contended that his rights under law were violated by the government’s apparent refusal to recognize the plaintiff’s belief in the existence of sasquatch. Continue reading “Canadian Court Dismisses Sasquatch Case”

August 30, 2018August 30, 2018 by Michelle Pardo

Court Narrows Lawsuit Challenging Withdrawal of Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Rule

by Michelle Pardo

Last week, a federal district court in the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental and animal rights organizations which sought to challenge the USDA’s withdrawal of a rule requiring new standards for raising, transporting and slaughtering organic animals. Center for Environmental Health, et al. v. Perdue (No. 3:18-cv-01763-RS, N.D. Cal.). The plaintiffs, various organic and environmental groups, together with the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, had sued the federal government over its withdrawal of a hotly-debated and commented upon Rule that proscribed animal welfare standards for livestock and poultry. Continue reading “Court Narrows Lawsuit Challenging Withdrawal of Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Rule”

August 29, 2018 by John M. Simpson

APHIS to Involve Attending Vets Directly in Inspections

by John M. Simpson.

In a recent letter and an accompanying video directed at veterinarians, the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care of the USDA Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS), Bernadette Juarez, described a new initiative that will involve attending veterinarians more directly in APHIS inspections of persons and entities licensed under the Animal Welfare Act. Continue reading “APHIS to Involve Attending Vets Directly in Inspections”

August 27, 2018 by John M. Simpson

Petting a Protected Species Can Cost You

by John M. Simpson.

A recent action by the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) illustrates how seriously the agency takes incidents of “harassing” protected species. According to a NOAA report, the agency fined a tourist $1,500 for “harassing” a monk seal and sea turtle on the Hawaiian island of Kau’i. Continue reading “Petting a Protected Species Can Cost You”

August 26, 2018 by John M. Simpson

Endangered Species Act Case Founders on Lack of 60-Day Notice

By John M. Simpson

A federal district court in New Hampshire recently dismissed a citizen suit making novel claims under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because the plaintiff could not prove that he had provided the required 60-day notice to the defendants prior to suit. Strahan v. Nielsen, 2018 WL 3966318 (D.N.H. Aug. 17, 2018). Continue reading “Endangered Species Act Case Founders on Lack of 60-Day Notice”

August 22, 2018 by John M. Simpson

D.C. Circuit Rejects PETA Nonhuman Primate FOIA Claim

by John M. Simpson

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which had denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for information about the importation of nonhuman primates. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., No. 16-5269 (D.C. Cir. August, 17, 2018). The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the release of such information would cause substantial competitive injury to the importers who had provided such information to HHS and therefore was properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 4, which exempts “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” from disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). Continue reading “D.C. Circuit Rejects PETA Nonhuman Primate FOIA Claim”

August 16, 2018 by Michelle Pardo

A Horse is a Horse (Of Course) . . .But a Plaintiff?

by: Michelle C. Pardo

“Justice” (formerly named “Shadow”) is an American Quarter Horse who had been subject to neglect by his prior owner. According to a complaint recently filed in state court in Oregon, the horse was left outside, underfed, and suffered from a variety of serious medical problems, including frostbite, trauma and infection. After complaints by a neighbor, the former owner surrendered Justice to a rescue organization back in March of 2017 and thereafter pleaded guilty to criminal neglect. The owner also agreed to pay restitution to the equine rescue organization for the costs of Justice’s care incurred prior to the plea. Media reports indicate that the owner paid more than $3,700 in restitution, was sentenced to three years probation, and may not possess any pets or livestock for five years (and only after completing 96 hours of community service). Typically, as disturbing as such court cases may be, that is the end of a legal proceeding involving animal abuse or neglect.

Justice’s story, however, has a “Part Two”. Justice is suing his former owner for negligence and has filed a lawsuit in his new name in a county court in Oregon. Continue reading “A Horse is a Horse (Of Course) . . .But a Plaintiff?”

August 15, 2018 by John M. Simpson

Third Circuit Decides Service Dog Issue of First Impression

by John M. Simpson

In Berardelli v. Allied Services Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, No. 17-1469 (3rd Cir. Aug. 14, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that, as to service animals, the 1973 Rehabilitation Act’s mandate of “reasonable accommodations” must be interpreted and applied in the same manner as the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standard of “reasonable modifications.” Therefore, even though there was no Rehabilitation Act regulation specifically so stating, the ADA regulation on public accommodations and public entities controlled. As a result, a request to an institution covered by the Rehabilitation Act for an individual to be accompanied by a service animal is “per se reasonable in the ordinary course.” Slip op. at 4. Continue reading “Third Circuit Decides Service Dog Issue of First Impression”