Loading...
Levine v. Vilsack
Wagman, Bruce McCurdy, Lisa
Wagman, Bruce
McCurdy, Lisa
Author(s)
Author(s) (Additional)
Illustrator(s)
Producer(s)
Contributor(s)
Contributor(s) (Other)
Editor(s)
Advisor(s)
Contact(s)
Data Collector(s)
Keywords
Collections
Files
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Online Access
Abstract
"Sometimes procedural rulings allow courts to avoid important decisions that would otherwise make social and ethical declarations about the duality of American values with respect to animals. Stark evidence of that comes with the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Levine v. Vilsack.[1] The Ninth Circuit ruled only that plaintiffs had no standing to sue because they did not meet the “redressability” requirement of standing under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.[2] With this holding, the opinion may signal a new hurdle for plaintiffs to clear. The opinion also leaves in place a federal policy that has mandated the humane treatment of animals before they are slaughtered for food for over fifty years, but applies it to only one out of every ten animals who reach the slaughterhouse. The opinion thus delivers two unfortunate messages. As a nation, we care about animals—but not 90 percent of them. And if you are working to protect animals in the courts, that work could become more difficult." (p. 1)
Note(s)
Topic
Type
Article
Date
2010
Identifier
ISBN
DOI
Copyright/License
With permission of the license/copyright holder