United States

Summary: Plaintiffs operated a derelict-animal “sanctuary” on their ten-acre property in Marion County, Texas, where they held over one hundred exotic animals, including six tigers, several leopards, and a puma. Plaintiffs were arrested and charged with animal cruelty and forfeited the animals. Afterward, plaintiffs sued many of those involved in the events under a cornucopia of legal theories, all of which the district court eventually rejected. On appeal, plaintiffs argued Marion County and the individual defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by illegally searching their property and seizing the animals. The court held, however, that government officials may enter the open fields without a warrant, as the defendants did here, because “an open field is neither a house nor an effect, and, therefore, the government's intrusion upon the open fields is not one of those unreasonable searches proscribed by the text of the Fourth Amendment.” One plaintiff further alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; however, the court dismissed this claim because the plaintiff failed to allege how he was excluded from a government benefit or effective service as a result of not having an interpreter during the investigation or arrest. The other claims were either dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not being properly appealed, or not stating a proper cause of action. The district court’s grant of summary judgment was therefore affirmed.

Summary: Appellant and his wife were walking their two dogs when two neighbor dogs attacked the group. After the attack, appellant slashed the attacking dog's throat with a knife, which resulted in the dog's death. Appellant was then charged with and convicted of cruelty to non-livestock animals under Texas law. The appellant appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals and the case was reversed and remanded. The State filed a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. The issue before that court was whether § 822.013(a) of the Texas Health and Safety Code, a non-penal code, provided a defense to criminal prosecution. The court held that § 822.013(a)—which allows an attacked animal's owner or a person witnessing an attack to kill a dog that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked a domestic animal—is a defense against cruelty to non-livestock animals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was therefore affirmed. The dissenting opinion disagreed. The dissent argued the goal of this statute was to protect farmers and ranchers against the loss of their livelihood by allowing them to protect their livestock from attacking dogs without fear of liability to the dog's owner, not to allow individuals in residential neighborhoods to kill a neighbor's dog after an attack with criminal impunity.

Summary: In 2020, Maryland revamped this chapter on the retail sale of cats and dogs. Under the amendments, a retail pet store may not offer for sale or otherwise transfer or dispose of cats or dogs. This section may not be construed to prohibit a retail pet store from collaborating with an animal welfare organization or animal control unit to offer space for these entities to showcase cats or dogs for adoption. The changes effectively nullified the state's pet purchaser protection act. Violation of the chapter is an unfair or deceptive trade practice within the meaning of Title 13 of the Commercial Law Article.

Summary: These regulations contain Oklahoma's rabies provisions.

Summary: These regulations are Louisiana's rabies provisions. Under the chapter, a person is prohibited from keeping a dog, cat, or ferret over the age of three months that has not been vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian.

Summary: These regulations contain Indiana's rabies provisions.

Summary: This Louisiana law makes it a crime against nature to engage in "unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex or opposite sex or with an animal." This results in a penalty of a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, and imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both. In 2018, the legislature added a new section dedicated to sexual abuse of animals.

Summary: This Alabama section enacted in 2014 prohibits people from knowingly engaging in or submitting to any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. The law also prohibits the furtherance of such activity or permitting any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal upon premises under his or her control. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

Summary: This article explores the cultural similarities and differences relating to the relationship between humans and animals in a globalized world. The article acknowledges that cultural differences in a globalized world can have a profound impact on the efficacy of advocacy for the benefit of animals. Attempts in one nation to provide protection for animals can have unintended consequences in our globalized world. The problem that then presents itself is, given the potpourri of human cultures and the need to take a global view of animal rights advocacy, how can animal rights advocates most efficiently and successfully advocate for animals? This article addresses that issue.