As animal litigation and legislation continue to become more
prevalent in the
In some instances, too much freedom under
the First Amendment is potentially detrimental to animals, as
illustrated
through United States v.
Stevens and
the religious slaughter exemption. In other instances, limits on
First
Amendment Freedoms are seemingly targeted to impede protections
for animals, as
witnessed with the state “Ag Gag” laws and the federal Animal
Enterprise
Terrorism Act. Where do we draw the line and what is
Constitutional?
Perhaps the largest obstacle for animals and animal advocates in the
courtroom is achieving standing. In recent months, animals have
had some
victories and some disappointments. The Oregon Court of Appeals
just held that non-human
animals are crime victims (in the context of merger); but yet, a
federal
district court judge ruled that a non-human animal could never be
enslaved
under the 13th Amendment. How can animal advocates use
existing
animal, environmental, consumer protection, and other laws and
human protections
to speak out for animals? Or should the animals themselves be the
plaintiffs?
The largest US-based food service company recently announced that it
would eliminate gestation crates from its pork supply chain by
2017. “Pink
slime” beef production factories shut down this year after public
outcry. In
the wake of news that Americans are beginning to see that change
in the food
industry is necessary for not only the animals, but our health,
too, what
should be our legislative goals? The “Hen Bill” would excitingly
be the first
federal law to protect the raising of a farmed animal; but given
the risky effects
of preemption as evidenced by National
Meat
Association v. Harris, are the “costs” of the bill too high?