As we argued, excluding dogs from one’s immediate family is now an anachronism, reflecting arbitrary, irrational, and unfair thinking. It’s no longer tenable to justify this exclusion based on the fact that dogs are not members of the species Homo sapiens, or on their status as mere personal property, akin to inanimate objects like pencils, tables, chairs, and toasters.
In August of this year, we filed another amicus brief asking California’s First District Court of Appeal to recognize that animal cruelty qualifies as a “significant evil” that may justify emergency intervention under the state’s common law defense of necessity.
The case arose from incidents in 2018 and 2019 when animal activists documented what they described as severe animal cruelty at Sunrise Farms and Reichardt Duck Farm in Sonoma County, California and removed animals for the purpose of providing them care. Following these events, the state charged the activists who documented the conditions and rescued the animals with trespass and conspiracy to trespass. One activist asked to present a necessity defense to the jury on the basis that the trespass was necessary to prevent animal cruelty. Incredibly, the trial court ruled that the necessity defense is inapplicable to preventing harm to nonhuman animals—even if the harm rises to the level of criminal cruelty.
We argued this ruling is wrong. Ensuring the common law’s just and rational development is a core responsibility of the courts. The trial court’s ruling is based on the outdated view that nonhuman animals are mere “things” whose suffering does not matter—a view fundamentally at odds with contemporary values as reflected by California’s own animal cruelty laws. The First District Court of Appeal has yet to rule.
The issue of judicial responsibility is central to our work of securing legal rights for nonhuman animals. We’re asking courts to fulfill their duty to ensure the common law evolves in tandem with society’s values—whether in the context of arguing that chimpanzees have a right to bodily liberty protected by habeas corpus, or that a dog can qualify as an immediate family member, or that animal cruelty constitutes a significant evil for purposes of the necessity defense.
We expect to engage in more amicus work in the coming year as funding allows. If you can, donate today to help us expand our efforts. Any donation you make to the NhRP right now goes twice as far in supporting our unique work to secure legal rights for nonhuman animals. Help keep the legal fight moving forward.
From everyone at the NhRP, thank you, John, for all your support in 2025.
