Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) runs a facility in Norfolk, Virginia that it calls an animal shelter. As with any other shelter operator in Virginia, PETA must submit an annual report to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) that reports on the fate of the animals that the shelter took in during the preceding year. As we have reported over the years (e.g., here, here and here), PETA’s VDACS reports show that PETA euthanizes a substantial number of the dogs and cats that it takes in and does so at a rate that exceeds the rates of public and private shelters in Virginia.
PETA’s report for 2025 continues to show this trend. Although the kill rate was down from 2024, PETA still euthanized nearly 60% of the dogs and cats that it took in. The table and graph below show the PETA euthanasia rate for the period 2014 through 2025:
PETA’s kill rate still greatly exceeds the rate at which dogs, cats and animals in general are euthanized in public and private shelters in Virginia. The following graph shows the results based on 2025 VDACS filings:
The results in PETA’s shelter also stand in stark contrast to the 2025 national euthanasia rate for shelters and rescues. The Shelter Animals Count (SAC), a data collection program that was acquired by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, employs a machine learning model to analyze and interpret data from animal shelters across the United States. SAC describes itself as “a neutral, industry-wide data collection entity.” According to SAC, in 2025, 5.8 million cats and dogs entered shelters and rescues across America. Of that number, however, 597,000 – or about 10% — were euthanized. Thus, PETA’s kill rate, even though modestly down in 2025, was still nearly six times more than the national average.
PETA’s VDACS filing goes on at length about its sterilization services, free dog houses and bedding and so forth, but it doesn’t address the fact that its euthanasia rate vastly exceeds that of other Virginia shelters, including public shelters, many of which are open admission. As we have observed before, if all of the dogs and cats that PETA puts down are fatally ill or unadoptable, it would be a simple matter for PETA to say so. The response? Crickets.
Certain environmental NGO’s claimed that San Luis Obispo County’s operation of a dam potentially harms the steelhead trout, a fish listed as threatened under the ESA. Plaintiffs sought a mandatory preliminary injunction directing changes in the dam’s water flow operation to help the trout. The county opposed, arguing that the mandated operational changes would harm the California red-legged frog and the tidewater goby, both of which live in the same habitat and are listed as endangered under the ESA. The district court granted the injunction without considering the impact on the frog and the goby. The Ninth Circuit reversed.
The appellate court noted that, in ESA cases, only the first two parts of the four-part standard for an injunction – (1) probability of success, (2) irreparable harm, (3) balance of the equities; (4) public interest – apply. This is because, in line with the famous “snail darter” case – TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) – Congress has already balanced the equities in favor of the listed species which take precedence over other competing equities “whatever the cost.” So, if there is probability of a take, then the endangered species at issue wins, regardless of how the relief impacts other interests. However, in a case like this one where the relief in favor of one listed species will affirmatively harm other listed species, the TVA rationale “collapses.” Slip op. at 19. In such a case, “[t]he exception to the traditional test, created in TVA, does not apply. The court must balance the equities and consider the public interest as to the other listed species.” Slip op. at 20.
So far so good. But how is a court supposed to do this? The district court here directed the parties to work it out with the National Marine Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, but those agencies declined to get involved. So now it’s up to the district court. The guidance from the Ninth Circuit was not particularly illuminating:
Species are interconnected. Sometimes, what looks harmful to one species in the short term may benefit it, or others, in the long run. And if there is no way to reconcile the risks to multiple listed species, the equities and public interest in species conservation, to which the ESA gave precedence, do not counsel a single outcome and judgments may need to be made about the relative strength of these considerations in relation to the protected species at issue. [Slip op. at 21].
In other words, do your best. But this can get tricky. As the concurring opinion observed, it may turn out to be a “zero sum game.” Slip op. at 27. Steelheads actually eat red-legged frog tadpoles and gobies, so relief that preserves more trout means that more red-legged frogs and gobies may become trout breakfast. Moreover, the steelhead is threatened while the red-legged frog and goby are endangered. When push comes to shove on who gets to survive, does the threatened species have to give way to the endangered one? This Solomonic decision is left to the district court.
On October 17, 2025 the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s summary denial of a writ of habeas corpus brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project seeking to have seven chimpanzees released from the DeYoung Family Zoo and transferred to an animal sanctuary. Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. DeYoung Family Zoo, LLC, No. 369247 (Mich. App. Oct. 17, 2025). Plaintiff never got out of the blocks. The courts did not even require the zoo to show cause or file an opposition to the writ.
The appellate court noted that while the writ is protected by the state constitution, its availability is prescribed by statute. A habeas action can be brought by any person on behalf of a prisoner, i.e., a person with a cognizable interest in personal liberty. But neither the constitution nor the statute provides detail on who qualifies as a “person.” The court therefore looked to the common law. Centuries of English common law plainly established that the category of persons was confined to human beings and artificial entities such as corporations. Animals were treated as objects of property. Slip op. at 10-11.
In this regard, the court rejected plaintiff’s “odious” analogy to the plight of women and enslaved persons:
Plaintiff’s analogies to habeas proceedings involving women or enslaved persons do not alter this landscape. Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that women were not “persons” at common law. The slavery analogy cuts the other way: The atrocity of slavery was that the law permitted persons to be treated as property. Blackstone observed that the origins of slavery were “built upon false foundations” and that “the law of England abhors, and will not endure the existence of, slavery within this nation.” . . . Those episodes reflect failures to honor human personhood, not expansions of it beyond the human species. [Slip op. at 12; citations omitted.]
As the court summed it up:
[C]himpanzees are animals, and as the common law authorities all make clear, animals – including wild animals, such as these chimpanzees – are treated as property. No exception exists for “intelligent” animals, which in any event has no natural stopping point – “[e]ven a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.”
. . .
A central aspect of personhood is mankind’s capacity to “give[] up a part of his natural liberty” and oblige[] himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.” . . . Chimpanzees – and nonhuman animals generally – are incapable of making this exchange. [Slip op. at 13; citations omitted.]
In addition to Michigan, the Nonhuman Rights Project has now lost on this same habeas corpus issue with respect to chimpanzees and elephants in the states of New York, Connecticut and California.
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the agencies’ respective regulatory definitions of “harm” as that term appears in the statutory definition of “take” in the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. Comments on the proposed rescission are due by May 19, 2025. See 90 Fed. Reg. 16102 (Apr. 17, 2025).
The ESA is the principal U.S. law protecting plants and animals that have been designated as likely to face extinction. The statute therefore broadly prohibits the “taking” of an endangered species. The statute itself defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). By regulation, FWS further defined the word “harm” to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. NMFS issued a materially identical definition of “harm.” 50 C.F.R. § 222.102.
The Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), upheld the regulatory definition of “harm,” giving it Chevron deference. Since Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), overruled Chevron, the agencies now contend that the current definitions do not constitute the “best reading” of the statutory term “harm.” Instead, the agencies point to the dissenting opinion in Sweet Home, which interpreted “harm” in light of the traditional understanding of “take,” which is to kill or capture a wild animal. Under this view, “take” requires an affirmative act against the species, not actions that affect the species indirectly.
The agencies recognize that Loper Bright itself stated that prior cases that relied on Chevron are still subject to statutory stare decisis. However
under the then prevailing Chevron framework, Sweet Home held only that the existing regulation is a permissible reading of the ESA, not the only possible such reading. Our rescission of the regulation definition on the ground that it does not reflect the best reading of the statutory text thus would not only effectuate the Executive Branch’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but would also be fully consistent with Sweet Home.
90 Fed. Reg. at 16103
The rescission of the regulatory definition of “harm” seems geared to address scenarios in which, for example, a construction project does not directly kill or injure a species but modifies the species’ habitat and thereby forces it to vacate the area.
The rulemaking presents several issues worth considering.
First, on the substance, while the agencies propose to rescind the definition of “harm,” they do not propose rescinding the regulatory definition of “harass.” “Harass” is defined in part to mean “annoying [the species] to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 50 C. F. R. § 17.3. (NMFS has no parallel definition of “harass.”) It would seem that most actions that amount to “harm” on the basis of habitat degradation would also constitute “harassment.”
Second, the rulemaking probably has no impact on endangered species maintained in a captive environment. Even if the “harm” definition is rescinded, the “harass” definition remains and, as it applies to captive wildlife, “harass” has been consistently defined by FWS to exclude “animal husbandry practices that meet or exceed the minimum standards for facilities and care under the Animal Welfare Act.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. That is, while a captive endangered species cannot be lawfully “harassed” under the ESA, there is no such harassment if the endangered species is held under conditions that comply with the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”). However, since “harm” was not defined with a link to the AWA, the deletion of the “harm” definition would eliminate the potential ambiguity that a captive species can be “harmed” even if the actions at issue are AWA-compliant.
Third, the rulemaking will likely test the contours of the Loper Bright pronouncement on statutory stare decisis. Sweet Home was a Chevron-based case, but the agencies seem to be taking the position that statutory stare decisis will not control the outcome because their actions are required by the Executive Branch’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. 90 Fed. Reg. at 16103 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).
Massachusetts is looking to become the ninth state to standardize a framework for judges to use in determining care and custody of companion animals during divorce.
Pets are property. As much as owners, individually, give their animals value akin to children or siblings, the legal system still considers them property. Yet, pets are continually recognized more and more as beings under state laws.
Recently, states have begun creating frameworks for determining with whom the pet should live based on the “best interest of the animal.” This phrase comes from a parallel phrase in family law: a core principle in determining child custody and visitation. These frameworks are a split from the common considerations in court where the owner is whoever paid the pet’s adoption fee or on a simple community vs. separate property analysis.
An Act standardizing consideration of pets in divorce and separation—Senate Bill 1205 (“S.1205”) and House Bill 1817 (“H.1817”)—has been referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. If passed, an additional section would be added to Chapter 208 (Divorce) of the General Laws which gives four factors for the court to consider in awarding sole or shared custody of a pet:
(i) Whether the parties are seeking sole or shared custody of the animal; (ii) Each party’s history with the animal, including in acquiring the animal and subsequent amount of time spent, expenses incurred, and caregiving responsibilities undertaken such as feeding, walking, playing, grooming, training, and veterinary visits; (iii) The emotional attachment of each party to the animal and, if relevant, of any children in the household; and (iv) Whether any party or person residing with any party has a history of abuse, cruelty, neglect, or violence toward animals or humans including those resulting in a conviction, continuance without a finding, or abuse prevention order.
The factors are written to assess the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the pet.
It is important to note that Massachusetts recently set new precedent for pet custody, though the decision was limited to disputes between unmarried partners. In 2024, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that pets, though property, are “special.” Lyman v. Lanser, 231 N.E.3d 358, 366 (2024). In Lyman, an unmarried couple acquired a Pomeranian dog named Teddy Bear during their relationship. They orally agreed to share custody of Teddy Bear if they ever split up. Upon their split, Plaintiff sought specific performance of their agreement against his ex-girlfriend who had, for two years, refused to let him visit Teddy Bear. Plaintiff’s attorneys, Boston Dog Lawyers, argued that pets should warrant special consideration under the law because of their distinct personalities and emotional value. The Lyman case will likely be discussed at the upcoming hearing on S.1205/H.1817.
On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a work created with artificial intelligence (AI) using a machine cannot be registered in the name of the machine itself because the Copyright Act requires that a copyright owner be a human being. Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025).
The plaintiff had created a picture entitled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” with a machine called the “Creativity Machine” that generated the artwork using AI. The plaintiff applied for copyright protection, listing the machine as the author and the plaintiff as the owner. Plaintiff argued (1) that, under the Copyright Act, an “author” need not be a human being but can be a machine; and (2) that plaintiff could be the owner of the work under the work-for-hire doctrine because non-humans such as corporations can be authors under this doctrine. As did the Copyright Office and the district court, the appellate court rejected both arguments.
As to the first point, the court noted that, while the Copyright Act does not define “author,” the statute’s use of that term is incompatible with a machine being an author. This is because, under the Copyright Act an “author”
must have the legal capacity to own property;
must have a lifespan since copyrights generally last for the author’s life plus 70 years;
must have surviving spouses or children under the statute’s inheritance provision;
must have a signature;
must have a nationality or domicile;
must have intentions since authors of joint works intend that the contributions be merged together.
[Slip op. at 11-12.] Machines can do none of these things. Furthermore, the Copyright Act at several places discusses machines and makes it clear that machines are tools not authors.
As to plaintiff’s work-made-for-hire argument, the court observed that that provision “allows the copyright and authorship protections attaching to a work originally created by a human author to transfer instantaneously, as a matter of law, to the person who hired the creator.” [Slip op. at 17.] The fact remains that the author of the work for hire must still be a human being.
While the plaintiff also argued that he should be considered the “author” of the work because he made and used the Creativity Machine, the court deemed this argument waived because it was not made to the Copyright Office. [Slip op. at 23.]
So, one might ask, what does this case have to do with animal law? Well, the Thaler case illustrates the arguments made by litigants seeking to get courts to convey to animals or other non-humans rights and privileges conventionally held only by human beings. One such argument in Thaler was the plaintiff’s point that the dictionary defined “author” as “one that originates or creates something” and therefore was not limited to human beings. However, as the court observed:
[S]tatutory construction requires more than just finding a sympathetic dictionary definition. We “do not read statutes in little bites,” or words in isolation from their statutory context. Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr., 547 U.S. 633, 643 (2006). The judicial task when interpreting statutory language, instead, is to discern how Congress used a word in the law.
[Slip op. at 16.]
In fact, the D.C. Circuit made a specific connection to animal law by citing the decision in Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018), in which the Ninth Circuit held that a monkey cannot be an “author” under the Copyright Act. And, like Thaler, animal rights groups have tried to base their arguments on dictionary definitions. See, e.g., Animal Leg. Def. Fund v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 933 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2019) (the term “individual” in the Freedom of Information Act cannot reasonably be interpreted to include a Bengal tiger).
As AI continues to develop and grow more robust, stayed tuned for more novel arguments in this space.
The Beach Boys wrote a song called “Pet Sounds.” In a recently filed federal lawsuit, animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment Animals (“PETA”) claims that it has a First Amendment right to receive monkey sounds (as well as monkey movements).
The lawsuit, filed on March 6, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, is entitled People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. National Institute of Mental Health, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00736-PX. The case centers on research done in an NIMH laboratory that utilizes the Rhesus Macaque. According to the Tulane University National Primate Research Center, Rhesus Macaques are placed within the Cercopithecidae family (Old World Monkeys), So, for simplicity, we’ll refer to them as monkeys.
The gravamen of the lawsuit is that the federal defendants turned down PETA’s request for a live-stream audiovisual feed of the monkeys in the laboratory. PETA claims that the monkeys are “willing speakers” who “regularly communicat[e]” about their physical and psychological condition. According to PETA’s complaint, experts in monkey communication claim the ability to understand the information that the animal sounds, body posture, facial expression and other actions purportedly convey. PETA claims that denying it the ability to communicate with “fellow primates” violates PETA’s First Amendment rights, and PETA therefore wants the court to permanently enjoin the defendants from “withholding from PETA … access to the rhesus macaques’ communications.”
PETA’s track record in opposing animal-based medical and mental health research is well-known. Thus, most of the complaint is devoted to describing the research that is performed, the conditions of the laboratory and in making PETA’s overall case for the abolition of animal-based research. However, the First Amendment predicate for the case is extremely thin, if not nonexistent. PETA cites a number of cases to the effect that there is a First Amendment right to receive information even though the speaker may not, itself, have a First Amendment right. But PETA cites no case (and we are aware of none) holding that the sounds and body gestures of a monkey constitute speech that is protected under the First Amendment – whether it concerns the speaker’s right to speak or the listener’s right to receive.
PETA’s complaint also pleads a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment but is very vague on what “property” or “liberty” interest of PETA was allegedly violated.
This isn’t the first time that PETA and other animal rights groups have sought attention by trying to get a court to confer human rights on an animal, but very few of these efforts has succeeded. Thus, killer whales are not subject to the Thirteenth Amendment, elephants are not covered by the writ of habeas corpus, a Bengal tiger can’t pursue a Freedom of Information Act request, humans don’t have “next friend” standing to pursue a copyright claim on behalf of a monkey or a bill of attainder claim on behalf of a barn owl, and dogs, birds and dugongs don’t have standing in federal court to sue. PETA’s current effort to have a federal court declare monkey speech protected by the First Amendment would clearly seem to be headed for a similar fate. Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected an effort to invoke the First Amendment on behalf of “Blackie the Talking Cat,” an animal that allegedly “spoke, for a fee, on radio and on television shows such as ‘That’s Incredible.’” Miles v. City Council of Augusta, Ga., 710 F.2d 1542, 1543 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Affirming dismissal of the First Amendment claim, the court ruled that it “will not hear a claim that Blackie’s right to free speech has been infringed. . . . [A]lthough Blackie arguably possesses a very unusual ability, he cannot be considered a ‘person’ and is therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights.” Id. at 1544 n.5.
Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) runs a facility that it calls an animal “shelter” in Norfolk, Virginia. All animal shelters in the Commonwealth of Virginia must report annually the number of animals the shelter takes in and what happened to them. These reports are filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VADCS) and are publicly available through that agency’s website.
PETA’s reports for 2024 show a high percentage of euthanized animals. PETA has maintained over the years that this death rate is because PETA accepts all types of animals, regardless of how poor the physical condition or likelihood of survival the animal’s situation may be. However, the public shelter in Norfolk — the Norfolk City Animal Control and Public Animal Shelter (NACC) — which also has an open admission policy, has a much lower euthanization rate. PETA has tried to claim that it serves a broader area, but NACC and PETA are only about 6 miles apart, so the differing euthanasia rates are not likely attributable to proximity. Furthermore, the overall euthanasia rate in the Commonwealth of Virginia for dogs and cats also is significantly lower than PETA’s. These trends are shown below in the graph that is based on 2024 filings with VDACS:
PETA’s euthanasia rates for dogs and cats have been consistently high over the last ten years, as the chart below (also based on VDACS collected data) illustrates:
The overall totals for this ten-year period are shown below:
PETA winces at the claim that it kills animals, but it does exactly that and in outsized numbers. If every single one of the dogs and cats that PETA puts down is beyond saving, then PETA ought to be able to say that in their intake policy, which they also must file with VDACS. But they don’t say that. The resulting silence is deafening, particularly when coupled with PETA’s well known, negative views on “pet” ownership:
Consider it from the perspective of animals who are kept as companions: Humans control every aspect of their lives-when and what they eat, whom they interact with, what they have to entertain themselves, even when and where they are allowed to relieve themselves. Dogs long to run, sniff, play with other dogs, and mark their territory. Cats yearn to scratch, climb, perch, and play. But they can’t satisfy these natural desires unless the people they depend on give them the opportunity to do so – and they often don’t.
PETA had $69,874,898 in revenue and $28,958,530 in net assets in 2023 according to its Form 990 filed with the IRS. Maybe PETA could take some of that money and do a better job of adopting out some of the dogs and cats that come into their possession.
Somewhat overshadowed by Chevron’s spectacular crash and burn last week was the Supreme Court’s decision the day before in SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 (U.S. June 27, 2024), holding that the SEC’s assessment of civil penalties in an administrative proceeding is unconstitutional because it deprives the party assessed of its Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury. This result has particular significance for those regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Continue reading “Supreme Court Guts USDA’s Power to Assess Civil Penalties Under the Animal Welfare Act”
