United States

MN - Insurance - 65A.303. Homeowner's liability insurance; dogs

Summary: This Minnesota law, effective in April 2024, states that an insurer writing homeowner's insurance for property is prohibited from (1) refusing to issue or renew an insurance policy or contract, or (2) canceling an insurance policy or contract based solely on the fact that the homeowner harbors or owns one dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds.

MN - Declaw - 504B.114. Pet declawing and devocalization prohibited

Summary: This Minnesota law, effective January 1, 2024, prohibits a landlord who allows an animal from: (1) advertising the availability of a real property for occupancy in a manner designed to discourage application for occupancy of that real property because an applicant's animal has not been declawed or devocalized; (2) refusing to allow the occupancy of a real property, refusing to negotiate the occupancy of a real property, or otherwise making unavailable or deny to another person the occupancy of a real property because of that person's refusal to declaw or devocalize an animal; or (3) requiring a tenant or occupant of real property to declaw or devocalize an animal allowed on the premises.

Revision of the AWA and Removal of Zoos as an Exempt Category

Summary: First, this article analyzes the dichotomy between legitimate, accredited zoological institutions, and roadside zoos. Understanding the difference between these types of facilities is critical to understanding how changes in federal and state law could eliminate a significant number of roadside zoos, while permitting accredited zoos to survive under firm guidelines. Second, this article will examine the current requirements of the AWA, to show how expansion in scope and specificity are critical. Specifically, this section will address the need for the AWA to extend to all captive animals, and to include specifies specific welfare provisions as well as a citizen suit provision. Third, this article will discuss the benefits of extending the Michigan anti-cruelty statute to zoos. This includes an analysis of the difference between zoos and other categories exempt from the state statute. Finally, this article will consider the effects of the proposed statute changes and provide suggestions for rehoming animals inevitably displaced by the changes in state and federal law.

C.M. v. E.M.

Summary: This is a family law case concerning, among other issues, the euthanasia of a family companion animal. Defendant argues that Plaintiff violated an order in place by putting the family dog down without reason, necessity, and justification, and that the dog was an emotional support animal whose custody had not been determined. Defendant also argues that plaintiff did not allow defendant the opportunity to spend time with the dog before it was put down, and that he suffered emotional distress due to the dog's death. The court found that the euthanasia of the family dog did not violate the order in place, because the companion animal was not classified as "property" or an "asset" under the order in place, and that animals are afforded additional protection under the Family Court Act. Whether the animal was put down unnecessarily could be considered animal cruelty, but that inquiry would need to be determined in a criminal proceeding, and criminal charges were not filed. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff did not violate the order by euthanizing the family dog.

Farm Sanctuary v. United States Department of Agriculture

Summary: This case was brought by plaintiffs, several nonprofit animal rights organizations, to challenge a Final Rule implementing a new swine inspection system at pig farms and slaughterhouses across the United States against defendants, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food Safety Inspection Service. The new system requires that employees of the slaughterhouses perform ante-mortem and post-mortem sorting activities before the federal inspection is to take place, which plaintiffs challenge under the argument that this shifting of the sorting activities to slaughterhouse employees is in violation of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). Plaintiffs argue that this delegation is improper, would negatively impact the safety of pork being produced by slaughterhouses, and would lead to inhumane slaughter of pigs. Plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the delegation of the sorting process was improper.

Mogensen v. Welch

Summary: Plaintiffs owned and operated a zoo containing about 95 animals. Following complaints about suspected abuse and neglect of these animals, defendant executed a search warrant of the zoo. The search led to the seizure of many of these animals, including a tiger in such poor health that it needed to be euthanized. Following the seizure of these animals, plaintiffs filed a motion to argue that their due process rights were violated because a civil forfeiture hearing must be held no more than ten business days after the state seized the animals, and plaintiffs argue that ten days is too little time to prepare for the hearing. To succeed on the claim, plaintiffs must show that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, which they were unable to do because plaintiffs still have the right to appeal if the hearing does not go in their favor. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.