Companion animal familial status shares a deep conceptual synergy with the NhRP's habeas corpus cases because both depend on the same legal principles: "the evolving legal status of nonhuman animals, the role and duty of common law courts, and the fundamental demands of justice[.]"

/6

The Court thus found that Duke was a member of the family under the circumstances: "This Court believes that 'a pet such as a dog is not just a thing' and [Plaintiff] 'is entitled to damages beyond the market value' of Duke[.]" (citations omitted)

/5

nonhumanrights.org/wp-content/u...

The Court agreed on framework: "Ultimately, if a trial court perceives a change in law, it is morally obligated to recognize it" and must "interpre[t] and appl[y] law to align with evolving societal norms while remaining faithful to the original intent."

/4

www.nonhumanrights.org/wp-content/u...

The Nonhuman Rights Project authored two amicus briefs arguing that courts are not just able to evolve common law to do justice, but have a responsibility to do so.

3/

www.nonhumanrights.org/wp-content/u...

14/ And now, the federal government is latching onto that language to dismiss the ASPCA's case challenging the USDA's granting of an Animal Welfare Act license to a puppy mill that reportedly threw a bag of dead puppies at an inspector and poured hot sauce on a dog's injuries.

5/ Article III of the U.S. Constitution says federal courts can only hear, pertinently, "all Cases [ ] arising under [ ] the Laws of the United States" and "all Controversies to which the United States shall be a party[.]"

3/ From the complaint: