Law Commons^™

United States Food Law Update: Shrouded By Election-Year Politics, State Initiatives And Private Lawsuits Fill In The Gaps Created By Congressional And Agency Ossification, A. Bryan Endres, Lisa R. Schlessinger, Rachel Armstrong

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Observers of food law in the 2012 presidential election year witnessed a dramatic slowing of federal initiatives-perhaps arising from a desire by both Congress and the administration to avoid upsetting critical constituent groups during a year seemingly dominated by campaigns and endless talking points. For example, Congress failed to take action on a unique compromise between what some had considered mortal enemies-the Humane Society of the United States and United Egg Producers-that would implement a federal animal welfare standard for laying hens in return for abandoning ballot measures in various states. Similarly, the FDA waited until the early days of …

Texas Indian Holocaust And Survival: Mcallen Grace Brethren Church V. Salazar, Milo Colton

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

When the first Europeans entered the land that would one day be called Texas, they found a place that contained more Indian tribes than any other would-be American state at the time. At the turn of the twentieth century, the federal government documented that American Indians in Texas were nearly extinct, decreasing in number from 708 people in 1890 to 470 in 1900. A century later, the U.S. census recorded an explosion in the American Indian population living in Texas at 215,599 people. By 2010, that population jumped to 315,264 people.

Part One of this Article chronicles the forces contributing …

Son Of Sam And Dog Of Sam: Regulating Depictions Of Animal Cruelty Through The Use Of Criminal Anti-Profit Statutes, Emma Ricaurte

Animal Law Review

In 1991, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 48, which prohibits the interstate sale and distribution of depictions of animal cruelty, in response to the proliferation of animal “crush videos” on the Internet. In 2008, the Third Circuit, in United States v. Stevens, a case involving dog fighting, held that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. In April of 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. Discussions about the regulation of depictions of animal cruelty have largely focused on whether the child pornography or obscenity exceptions to the First Amendment should be extended to include …

Subverting Justice: An Indictment Of The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Kim Mccoy

Animal Law Review

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) creates yet another obstacle for the animal advocacy movement. This article explores the reasons behind the AETA’s enactment and its implications for those who advocate on behalf of animals. The author notes the AETA targets individuals based solely on their political ideology and can deter these individuals from exercising their right to free speech due to the threat of being permanently branded as a terrorist. It is this infringement on First Amendment rights, coupled with the AETA’s overbreadth and vagueness, that lead the author to conclude the AETA is unconstitutional. The author also notes …

Caging Animal Advocates' Political Freedoms: The Unconstitutionality Of The Animal And Ecological Terrorism Act, Andrew N. Ireland Moore

Animal Law Review

The animal advocacy movement is facing another obstacle, resulting from the creation of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA). The Act seeks to create harsh penalties including a Terrorist Registry for acts performed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and ALF-type actors. In addition, the proposed legislation will affect animal advocates not involved with the ALF. However, the model legislation, as written, must pass Constitutional scrutiny. This paper argues that the proposed Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is unconstitutional due to its infringement on the First Amendment, its overbreadth, and its vagueness.

Shoot First, Talk Later: Blowing Holes In Freedom Of Speech, Jacqueline Tresl

Animal Law Review

Ms. Tresl examines the constitutionality of hunter harassment laws. When a five-step doctrinal analysis is applied to hunter harassment statutes, it is clear that the statutes are content-based and subject to the strictest of scrutiny. Because the statutes fail the strict scrutiny test, they therefore violate the American citizenry’s First Amendment right to free expression.