
My last post in July was about a court case in New York state where a judge decided a dog who had been killed by a negligent driver could be considered “immediate family” under the law, enabling the family to seek damages beyond the monetary value of the dog.
One of the things I find fascinating about cases like this is you can watch the legal system—which is inflexible by nature—grapple in real time with changing societal norms. And I’m equally fascinated by how we think about and relate to other species, and how and why that has changed over time. So matters of animal law are of particular interest.
If these matters intrigue you as well, here are a few more recent legal cases involving our relationship with other animals.
California Court of Appeal denies the necessity defense on behalf of animals
This case gets at the question of who should decide whether animals matter under the law. In the New York case I wrote about, a judge saw it as his role to answer a legal question about when and how animals matter. The court in a recent California case saw things differently.
The case involves an animal rights activist who was charged in 2019 with trespass during protests at farms in Sonoma County, during which activists took sick chickens and ducks from the farms, got them veterinary care and brought them to live at animal sanctuaries. One of the activists charged was Wayne Hsiung, co-founder of an animal rights group called Direct Action Everywhere that has won similar cases in the past, including one that got a fair amount of press coverage involving two sick piglets rescued from a factory farm in Utah.
Hsiung, who is a lawyer, represented himself at a jury trial and asked to present a “necessity defense,” which is a doctrine excusing the breaking of a law in order to stop or prevent something worse, such as breaking a car window on a hot day to rescue a baby at risk of overheating. Hsiung pointed out that 14 states also allow citizens to break a car window to rescue a dog and argued that in his case, trespassing was necessary in order to prevent the more serious harm of animal cruelty, which represented a “significant evil” under the necessity doctrine.
The judge denied the request, saying that the necessity defense does not apply to harm to animals. The prosecution argued that in order to apply it to animals, the necessity defense would need to be expanded, which is the purview of lawmakers, not courts. In 2023 Hsuing was convicted of two counts of misdemeanor trespass and one count of felony conspiracy to trespass and sentenced to 90 days in jail, of which he served 38. He is currently appealing his conviction in the California Court of Appeals.
Continue reading





