Animal Law Legal Center home page

Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

On this site you will find a comprehensive repository of information about animal law, including: over 1200 full text cases (US, historical, and UK), over 1400 US statutes, over 60 topics and comprehensive explanations, legal articles on a variety of animal topics and an international collection.

Read more about Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

May News

Georgia enacts legislation addressing growing problem of roadside or "swap meet" sales of companion animals. On May 9, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed HB 331 into law. This law makes it illegal to transfer any dog, cat, or domestic rabbit at any roadside, public right of way, parkway, median, public or commercial parking lot or sidewalk, park, recreation area, fair, transient or seasonal flea market, or a similar transient market or outdoor location. Violation incurs a fine of $100.00 for a first offense, graduating to $500 for a third or subsequent offense. Georgia now joins several other states prohibiting such transactions like CA, IL, NE, NV, and VA. The purpose of these laws is to address sales of companion animals from unregulated mass breeders ("puppy mills") and ensure that puppies have proper care prior to transfer. Learn more about "swap meet" sales.

Washington becomes latest state to ban certain animals from traveling animal shows. On April 22nd, Gov. Bob Ferguson signed SB 5065 into law, which prohibits the use of "covered animals" in traveling animal acts like circuses and traveling exhibits. Covered animals include nonhuman primates, elephants, bears, and big cats. Washington now joins at least ten states with such laws. Last May, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed SB 547/HB 379 into law, which prohibits the use of elephants, big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates in traveling shows and circuses in the state. In August 2024, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed H 4915 into law, prohibiting the use of big cats, bears, elephants, non-human primates, and also giraffes. In addition to these laws, several other states ban the use of cruel training methods on elephants. See all the laws in our Map.

Missouri seeks to expand “cross-reporting” law to help both animal and domestic violence victims. Cross-reporting laws are laws that either require or allow certain agency professionals to report suspected incidents of cruelty or neglect to other agencies, even if the underlying event falls under a different agency’s jurisdiction. In the context of animal law, this means that a child protective worker could report suspected animal abuse to animal control or animal control could report suspected child abuse or neglect to protective services. About 15 U.S. and D.C. have laws that permit or mandate cross-reporting of abuse. According to a recent article out of Missouri, HB 1298 seeks to add animal control officers and humane investigators to the list of mandatory reporters for child or elder abuse. Not only is animal abuse seen as a “predictor crime” for human violence, but animal control officers have ten times the contact with the public compared to law enforcement officers. Curious to learn more about the importance of cross-reporting laws? Check out our Topic Introduction.

News archives

Cases

Court upholds DV protection order that included companion animals. Williams v. Cabrera, --- S.E.2d ----, 2025 WL 1118850 (N.C. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2025). The Court of Appeals affirmed, as modified, a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) granting Plaintiff custody of the parties' emotional support dog, Melo, and restraining Defendant from animal cruelty under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3(a)(9)(b1), but struck an overbroad social media restriction. The dispute arose when Defendant struck Plaintiff with her car while fleeing with both dogs after refusing Plaintiff’s proposed "coparenting" arrangement, causing Plaintiff physical injury and emotional distress. Though the trial court improperly incorporated Plaintiff’s complaint as findings without independent analysis, which violated Rule 52(a)(1)’s requirement for logical reasoning, the remaining findings (supported by Plaintiff’s testimony about the vehicular assault) sufficed to establish domestic violence under § 50B-3(a). The Court upheld the animal-related provisions as authorized discretionary relief, emphasizing that companion animals may be protected under DVPOs to prevent further harm, but narrowed the order to ensure proportionality.

Accusatory instrument for NY animal cruelty case based on veterinary neglect was found factually insufficient; court declined to opine on whether term "sustenance" includes veterinary care under the law. People v. Farrell, --- N.E.3d ----, No. 30, 2025 WL 1071420 (N.Y. Apr. 10, 2025). The Court of Appeals reversed Ulster County Court and reinstated Kingston City Court’s dismissal of the accusatory instrument against Christopher Farrell for violating AML § 353 (failure to provide necessary sustenance to an animal), holding the instrument facially insufficient. The investigator’s allegations, principally that Farrell’s dog suffered from untreated spondylosis, flea infestation, and masses, relied on hearsay and lacked nonhearsay facts linking the conditions to Farrell’s neglect, such as veterinary records or observable signs of suffering. While the prosecution argued that Farrell’s admission to never seeking veterinary care established culpability, the Court found this insufficient without evidence that the lack of care directly caused the dog’s decline. Without factual allegations demonstrating deprivation of sustenance, the instrument failed to meet jurisdictional pleading standards under CPL 100.40, mandating dismissal. The Court declined to resolve whether "sustenance" includes veterinary care, as the pleading deficiencies were dispositive.

FL bar challenged Dept. of Health rule related to dogs in food service establishments. Fla. Dep't of Health v. Pups Pub TPA, LLC, --- So.3d ----, 2025 WL 1240026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2025). The appellate court reversed the ALJ’s determination that the Florida Department of Health (DOH) had enforced an unadopted rule by prohibiting non-service dogs in bars, holding instead that DOH’s directives merely reiterated the plain language of rule 64E-11.003(6)(c), which broadly bans live animals, including dogs, from food service establishments, defined under § 381.0072(2)(c) to include bars and lounges. Pups Pub argued DOH’s authority was limited to regulating areas where food and drinks are prepared and served, but the court rejected this narrow interpretation, finding the statute unambiguously grants DOH jurisdiction over the entire premises of such establishments. The court emphasized that DOH’s interpretation aligned with the text and purpose of the regulatory scheme, which encompasses sanitation controls beyond immediate food-handling zones, rendering formal rulemaking unnecessary. Consequently, DOH’s enforcement actions were upheld, affirming its authority to exclude dogs from bars unless exempted as service animals.

Case Archives