Ninth Circuit Rejects Activist Appeal in Endangered Dugong Case

by John M. Simpson.

On May 6, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government in a case brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and other plaintiffs to challenge a decision by the Department of Defense (DOD) approving a plan to construct a replacement aircraft base in Okinawa, Japan, for the U.S. Marine Corps.  Center for Biological Diversity v. Esper, __ F.3d __, No. 18-16836 (9th Cir. May 6, 2020).  In this case, which had originated in 2003, the issue was whether DOD had complied with section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. § 307101(e). Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Rejects Activist Appeal in Endangered Dugong Case”

National Zoo Elephant’s Passing Underscores Longevity of Captive Elephants

by John M. Simpson.

On March 28, 2020, the National Zoo announced the passing of one of the oldest Asian elephants maintained in a zoological environment. The elephant Ambika, who had resided at the National Zoo for 59 years was estimated to be 72 years old at the time of death. Continue reading “National Zoo Elephant’s Passing Underscores Longevity of Captive Elephants”

New York Court Denies Habeas Petition for Bronx Zoo Elephant

by John M. Simpson.

On February 18, 2020, a trial court in Bronx County, New York, denied a habeas corpus petition filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) on behalf of “Happy,” a 48-year old Asian elephant residing in the Bronx Zoo.  Nonhuman Rights Project v. Breheny, No. 260441/19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty. Feb. 18, 2020). The court ruled, based on binding New York precedent, that “Happy” is not a “person” for purposes of habeas corpus relief. Continue reading “New York Court Denies Habeas Petition for Bronx Zoo Elephant”

PETA Animal “Shelter” Continues to Show High Euthanization Rate

by John M. Simpson.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is well known for its publicity-seeking tactics.  Over the past Super Bowl weekend, PETA generated controversy with a commercial that it claims was rejected by the Fox Network which depicted cartoon animals “taking a knee” during the National Anthem.  The social media response was not positive.  Some critics saw this as trivializing and misappropriating Colin Kaepernick’s protest activities or trivializing the civil rights movement in general.  During this same period, PETA’s founder, Ingrid Newkirk, went on record claiming that calling a pet a “pet” is offensive and disrespectful and tantamount to calling a woman “honey” or “sweetie,” drawing another offensive comparison — this time between dog or cat ownership and sexual discrimination and harassment. Continue reading “PETA Animal “Shelter” Continues to Show High Euthanization Rate”

Farmers in Ontario Could Get Increased Protection from Animal Rights Trespassers

by John M. Simpson.

On December 2, Bill 156 was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Canada, entitled the “Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2019.”  The measure, which was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and which passed upon first reading, stiffens protections for farmers and animal processing facilities against trespass and other physical property invasions or interference with animal transportation. Continue reading “Farmers in Ontario Could Get Increased Protection from Animal Rights Trespassers”

This Little Piggy Went to Court

by Michelle C. Pardo

We previously blogged about the animal rights’ movement’s attempts to convince various U.S. courts to allow animals the same rights as people in the court system.  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal’s (PETA’s) failed “monkey selfie” case, an effort to convince a federal court to rule that the crested macaque had standing under the Copyright Act, was not only dismissed, but earned PETA a sharp rebuke from the Ninth Circuit, when the court determined that the activist group seemingly employed Naruto the monkey as “an unwitting pawn it its ideological goals.”  Now PETA has taken its “animal personhood” crusade internationally. Continue reading “This Little Piggy Went to Court”

Animal Rights Group’s Charity Status Revoked by Australian Authorities

by John M. Simpson.

We have reported previously on the activities of Aussie Farms, an animal rights group in Australia that, earlier this year, published an internet-based interactive map showing the locations and other information regarding hundreds of farms and other animal-based businesses in Australia.  The map provoked a strong, negative reaction from the agriculture community in Australia, with some calling for the revocation of Aussie Farms’ status as a charity.  On November 18, 2019, the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) announced that it had “revoked the charity status of Aussie Farms following an investigation.”  Continue reading “Animal Rights Group’s Charity Status Revoked by Australian Authorities”

Australian State Gets Tough With Animal Rights Trespassers

by John M. Simpson.

On November 13, 2019, the Parliament of New South Wales passed legislation aimed at dealing with the increasing threat to farmers and their operations posed by animal rights activists in Australia who have taken up physical property trespassing as a tactic to get their various points across.  The measure, entitled the Right to Farm Bill 2019, increases the criminal penalties for aggravated trespass and creates a new offense for inciting aggravated trespass. Continue reading “Australian State Gets Tough With Animal Rights Trespassers”

Update on Elephant Habeas Corpus Case

by John M. Simpson.

We recently reported on a case in which an animal rights group, the Nonhuman Rights Project,  sought habeas corpus relief for three Asian elephants maintained in a zoo in Connecticut.  The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and ruled that the plaintiff had no standing  because the elephants themselves had no standing. Continue reading “Update on Elephant Habeas Corpus Case”

UK Advertising Standards Authority Bans PETA Ad As “Misleading” and Lacking Substantiation

by John M. Simpson.

On September 4, 2019 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which describes itself as “the UK’s independent advertising regulator,” upheld a challenge to an advertisement  that had been displayed for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on the side of buses in February 2019.  As the authority described it, the ad “included the text ‘Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes.  Wool is just as cruel as fur.  GO WOOL-FREE THIS WINTER PeTA.’  Beside the text was an image of a woman with the neck of her jumper pulled over her face.”   Ten complainants challenged whether the claim “wool is just as cruel as fur” was misleading and could be substantiated.  ASA upheld the challenge and ruled that the ad “must not appear in its current form” and “told PETA not to use the claim ‘wool is just as cruel as fur’ in [the] future.”  Continue reading “UK Advertising Standards Authority Bans PETA Ad As “Misleading” and Lacking Substantiation”

© 2009-2025 Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress