• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
For years social science has demonstrated a link between animal abuse and human violence but the legal system has been slow to recognize this link. This article discusses the link among domestic violence, child abuse and animal abuse in the home and how one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, is addressing this complex and integrated cycle of abuse as family abuse. The legal proposals include mandatory cross-reporting of abuse between child services and animal protection services, recognizing pet abuse with the intent of injuring a human family member as grounds for an intra-family abuse protective order, providing companion animal protection in protective orders, and creating safe havens for all abused family members, including the pet.

Animal Abuse, Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Intra-family violence, Criminal Law

Abstract:
For many people, their companion animal is their "life-line." Almost 65% of all US households have a companion animal. Moreover, it is well-documented that living with a companion animal is therapeutic. Unfortunately, obtaining housing that allows companion animals can be very difficult. It is common for rental leases to prohibit companion animals. Moreover, many mobile home parks, cooperatives, condominiums and homeowners associations are banning companion animals, leaving fewer and fewer opportunities for people to benefit from the love of a companion animal. Last but not least, many homeless animals are needlessly destroyed because no-pet rules eliminate options for placing them. This short piece first discusses the federal legal protections for the disabled who require service animals and notes the difficulties the disabled have in utilizing and/or enforcing these laws. The article then discusses the need for reform more generally to provide protections for owners of pets in housing, citing California as the first jurisdiction to enact a law that prohibits no-pet clauses in condominium, home owners or mobile home park governing documents as of 2001.

Landlord/Tenant, Contracts, Pet-Clauses, Leases, Disability, Companion Animals

Abstract:
On March 3, 2006, an Ohio appeals court issued a landmark decision in City of Toledo v. Tellings, 2006 WL 513946 (Ohio App. 6 Dist), which may affect pit bulls and pit bull "look-a-likes" and their owners nationwide. Tellings was the owner of three pit bulls. The warden killed one of his pit bulls and criminally charged Tellings with two violations of the local Toledo ordinance limiting ownership to one vicious dog per household and two violations of the state statute requiring liability insurance with ownership of a vicious dog. The vicious dog laws on Ohio include pit bulls in the definition of "vicious dogs" per se. Tellings challenged these vicious dog laws as unconstitutional on several grounds. In a groundbreaking decision, the Ohio court found the statutes unconstitutionally vague and unreasonable. This short article analyzes the court's findings. The decision is currently under review by the Ohio Supreme Court as of summer 2007.

Breed-specific legislation, Criminal Law, Dangerous Dogs, Equal Protection, Due Process, City of Toledo v. Tellings

Abstract:
The military's discrimination against gays combined with the Solomon Amendment that forces schools to allow equal access to military recruiters in violation of their non-discrimination policies, upheld by the Supreme Court under constitutional challenge in FAIR v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 1297 (2006), has created many difficulties for law schools. The law schools are torn between protecting their gay students from discrimination and enforcing their non-discrimination policy and violating the Solomon Amendment and thus risking the loss of substantial federal funding. In September 2006, the George Washington Law School was presented with a question of first impression. To what extent should student organizations be bound by the regulations that govern the GW placement office/Career Development Office regarding military recruitment? In other words, should/must the school allow student organizations to invite the military to employment related functions? This article discusses the legal and policy implications of this question after FAIR v. Rumsfeld. This paper was prepared for the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Section's panel entitled: "Accepting the Court's Invitation" at the American Association of Law School's Annual Conference, Washington D.C., January 3, 2007.

Military recruitment; FAIR v. Rumsfeld, Solomon Amendment, First Amendment

Abstract:
For the several years, primarily as a political ploy, the President and Republican Congress, proposed an amendment to the US Constitution to prohibit marriage between people of the same sex - the Federal Marriage Amendment. This article analyzed this proposed amendment in light of the constitutional principles that govern our society, individual rights, federalism, separation of powers, and judicial review. The article concludes that the FMA is itself constitutionally suspect and is more destructive, on balance, of the basic democratic constitutional principles than any amendment previously adopted or proposed. The amendment violates every tenet of constitutional democracy by: (1) expressly limiting the due process and equality interests of a minority group; (2) precluding the Supreme Court from fulfilling its role as the protector of individual rights; and, (3) foreclosing the states from experimenting with progressive laws designed to promote equality within an area uniquely reserved to the state governments.

Federal Marriage Amendment, Same-sex Marriage, Federalism, Separation of Powers, Individual Rights, Constitutional Amendments, Equal Protection, Due Process, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health