{"id":688,"date":"2026-03-19T15:02:27","date_gmt":"2026-03-19T19:02:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/?p=688"},"modified":"2026-03-20T07:14:40","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T11:14:40","slug":"petas-monkey-speech-claim-fails","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/2026\/03\/19\/petas-monkey-speech-claim-fails\/","title":{"rendered":"PETA\u2019s Monkey Speech Claim Fails"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By John M. Simpson.\u00a0 As we previously reported<\/a>, animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sued the National Institutes of Health and Mental Health in federal court seeking to compel the defendants to install a live video feed in the defendants\u2019 laboratories so that PETA can receive the communications of the rhesus macaques that are being used in medical research.\u00a0 PETA claimed a First Amendment right \u201cas a listener\u201d to the live feed and a Fifth Amendment \u201cliberty and property interest\u201d in the same channel of communication.\u00a0 The court granted the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.\u00a0 PETA v. Nat\u2019l Inst. of Mental Health<\/em>, No. 8:25-cv-00736-PX, 2026 WL 39219 (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court lacked jurisdiction, first, because defendants had sovereign immunity.  While the Administrative Procedure Act could be the basis for waiving sovereign immunity, it could only do so if the agency action at issue was final.  The action here was not final because \u201cthe challenged agency action is neither discrete nor specific, but rather cuts to the very kind of programmatic decisions that would require reconciling needs of the experimenters with the public\u2019s video access of the same.\u201d  2026 WL 39210, at *3.  Nor had PETA shown that the defendants had determined PETA\u2019s rights or obligations.  PETA could cite \u201cneither binding nor persuasive authority\u201d that animal communications implicate a First Amendment right as a \u201clistener\u201d or a Fifth Amendment \u201c\u2019life, liberty, or property\u2019 interest in the asserted \u2018open channel of communications.\u2019\u201d  Id<\/em>.  at *4.  Finally, PETA failed to persuade the court that defendants were required by law to provide the access to the macaques that PETA demanded.  Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also lacked jurisdiction because PETA had no Article III standing to sue.  PETA\u2019s claimed injury to its First Amendment right to listen \u201cis not, as pleaded, a legally protected interest sufficient to confer standing.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at *5.  As the court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nowhere does PETA establish any authority whatsoever for the extraordinary proposition that the macaques\u2019 sounds and movements constitute protected speech to which a companion right-to-listen exists.  Rather, PETA relies on a legion of inapposite law concentrating on the public\u2019s right to receive human speech<\/em>. . . .  But PETA gives the Court nothing that comes close to establishing a constitutional right to receive \u201cnon-human primate\u201d sounds or behaviors.<\/strong>  [Id<\/em>.]<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
The court also found PETA\u2019s reliance on the decision in Murthy v. Missouri<\/em>, 603 U.S. 43 (2024) \u2013 in which social media users challenged government censorship during COVID-19 \u2013 to be misplaced:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Like the plaintiffs in Murthy<\/em>, PETA relies on a \u201cboundless\u201d theory of the \u201cright to listen\u201d to animal sounds and behavior. As in Murthy<\/em>, the scope of this theory is breathtaking; it would confer standing to sue on anyone who claims interest in the sounds and movements that animals use to communicate with each other. This is the very kind of overly broad articulation of \u201cinjury\u201d that the Murthy<\/em> Court eschewed. PETA, therefore, has not pointed to any legal authority which supports a constitutionally protected interest in receiving communications from the macaques.  [Id<\/em>. at *6].<\/strong><\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Whether PETA intends to appeal this ruling remains to be seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By John M. Simpson.\u00a0 As we previously reported, animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sued the National Institutes of Health and Mental Health in federal court seeking to compel the defendants to install a live video feed in the defendants\u2019 laboratories so that PETA can receive the communications of the … <\/p>\n
Continue reading “PETA\u2019s Monkey Speech Claim Fails”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":317,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[21,1115,187,1114,101,45,37],"ppma_author":[697],"class_list":["post-688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-animal-rights","tag-final-agency-action","tag-first-amendment","tag-john-m-simpson","tag-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals","tag-peta","tag-standing"],"authors":[{"term_id":697,"user_id":317,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jmsimpson","display_name":"John M. Simpson","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2018\/06\/simpsonjohn-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/317"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=688"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}