PETA Claims First Amendment Right to Communicate with Monkeys

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. 

PETA’s Animal Shelter Still Shows Grim Euthanasia Results

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.

PETA’s Animal “Shelter” Continues as a Leader in Animal Death

Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) recently posted the “news” that it had “newly obtained public records” showing that certain research universities had euthanized laboratory animals during the COVID-19 pandemic and that PETA had complained about this to the National Institutes of Health.  In its zeal to attack the use of animals in medical research, PETA described this as a “mass killing spree.”  What this ignores, however, as reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education back in 2020 when all this happened, is that universities made these difficult decisions because they had no choice.  Social distancing requirements that forced animal care personnel to stay out of the labs, precluded the delivery of proper animal care.  It was not humane to allow the animals to go without food, water and other husbandry.  But what we thought was particularly interesting is PETA’s use of the rhetoric “mass killing spree” in light of what goes on in its own facility in Norfolk, Virginia. Continue reading “PETA’s Animal “Shelter” Continues as a Leader in Animal Death”

Animal Rights Challenge to Iowa “Ag Gag Law” Fails in Eighth Circuit

On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other groups to an Iowa statute that prohibits “agricultural facility fraud.”  Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, No. 22-1830 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024).  Statutes like this are often termed “ag gag laws” by their opponents.  The district court had declared that the law violates the First Amendment, but the court of appeals reversed. Continue reading “Animal Rights Challenge to Iowa “Ag Gag Law” Fails in Eighth Circuit”

PETA Open Records Case Takes an Interesting Turn

On February 17, 2023, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction that had restrained the University of Washington from releasing records containing personal identifying information of current and former members of the University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).  The records request had been submitted by animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).  The appellate panel ruled that the district court erred in determining that the IACUC members had raised a serious issue that their First Amendment right of association would be infringed by release of the records, but did not reach the other arguments raised by the IACUC members which presumably will be addressed on remand.  Sullivan v. University of Washington, No. 22-35338 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2023). Continue reading “PETA Open Records Case Takes an Interesting Turn”

PETA Hog-Catching Case Fails for Lack of Standing

On February 8, 2023, the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment dismissing a lawsuit that animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and a former PETA employee had brought seeking to enjoin the “Bandera Wrangler’s Hog Catch,” a feral hog-catching contest held annually in Bandera, Texas.  PETA v. Bandera Wranglers, No. 04-21-00466-CV (Tex. Civ. App. — San Antonio 2023).  The court ruled that neither plaintiff had standing to sue under Texas law. Continue reading “PETA Hog-Catching Case Fails for Lack of Standing”

With the Death Rate in PETA’s Animal Shelter, It Really Is Groundhog Day

Annually, animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) condemns Groundhog Day.  This year, PETA called the exhibition of Punxsutawney Phil “a cruel form of speciesism, a human supremacist worldview.”  Ironically, Groundhog Day is around the same time that PETA reports the euthanasia rates in its Norfolk, Virginia shelter to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS).  As a further irony, the theme of the movie “Groundhog Day,” in which the protagonist experiences the same thing over and over again, accurately characterizes PETA’s kill rate:  just like last year and the year before and the year before that, PETA euthanized animals in 2022 at a rate that vastly exceeded the rates of facilities in Virginia reporting to the VDACS. Continue reading “With the Death Rate in PETA’s Animal Shelter, It Really Is Groundhog Day”

PETA’s Defense of Its High Euthanasia Rate Is Unconvincing

In an interview posted on Youtube on June 6, 2022, Ingrid Newkirk, founder of the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), discussed several subjects, including claims made in 2004 by comedy team Penn & Teller that PETA kills dogs and cats.  Ms. Newkirk described the Penn & Teller claims as “cheap” and “misinformed.” (We have reported in the past (see, for example, here) on the statistics compiled by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) showing that PETA’s shelter in Norfolk, Virginia has a high rate of euthanasia when compared to other shelters operating in the Commonwealth of Virginia.)  According to Ms. Newkirk, PETA’s shelter is an “open admission shelter” that takes in “animals that are on their last legs” — “the dregs, if you will” — that “have the door slammed shut on them in other places.” The implication is that this is the reason for the high euthanasia rate.  Ms. Newkirk stated that PETA would “never” euthanize a healthy animal.

Ms. Newkirk’s interview came on the heels of an event recently sponsored by PETA called the “Poochella Festival” which PETA described as a “multishelter adoption event” designed to help “Virginia dogs find loving homes.”  According to PETA, “[o]ur shelters” — presumably PETA and the four other local animal shelters that participated in the event — “are bursting at the seams with wonderful dogs who would love to become great companions.”

Given its history of euthanizing the vast majority of dogs that it receives, the assertion that PETA is “bursting at the seams” with dogs to be adopted struck us as questionable.  So, we decided to look at the reported data to see how PETA compares with the four shelters that PETA stated participated in “Poochella:” Chesapeake Animal Services, the Norfolk SPCA, Virginia Beach Animal Control, and the Virginia Beach SPCA.

Continue reading “PETA’s Defense of Its High Euthanasia Rate Is Unconvincing”

PETA’s Animal “Shelter” Continues High Euthanasia Rate

It’s that time of year again when animal shelters in the Commonwealth of Virginia must submit their annual summary of animal custody records to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS).   Any shelter operating in Virginia must report how many animals it had on hand at the beginning of the year, how many it had at the end of the year and what happened to them.  Specifically, VDACS requires that the shelter report the number of animals euthanized. Continue reading “PETA’s Animal “Shelter” Continues High Euthanasia Rate”

Eighth Circuit Upholds Part of Iowa “Ag Gag” Law

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld, in part, the constitutionality of an Iowa law that makes it a criminal offense to obtain access to an agricultural facility by false pretenses.  Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Reynolds, No. 19-1364 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021).  The court reversed in part a district court ruling that the law violated the First Amendment. Continue reading “Eighth Circuit Upholds Part of Iowa “Ag Gag” Law”

© 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