ANIMAL LAW

Commentary and Interviews

By

Professor Henry Mark Holzer

Chairman, International Society for Animal Rights

Beginning with Professor Henry Mark Holzer's groundbreaking cases in the 1970's in behalf of animal rights there has been a steady march of litigation in furtherance of that cause, which ISAR is committed to accelerating. 

For example, ISAR sued the United States government to stop the slaughter of millions of blackbirds, and to close a glaring unconstitutional exception in the federal Humane Slaughter Act. Recently, ISAR filed a brief in the Supreme Court of the United States supporting the constitutionality of a federal statute criminalizing the creation, possession or sale of depictions of animal abuse.

Professor Holzer, has for decades provided legal, strategic, and tactical advice to a wide range of animal rights/welfare organizations and their lawyers in cases involving the protection and advancement of animal rights.

See The People v. Keith Chung, Revisited for Professor Holzer's annotations on the California Court of Appeal's written opinion in a recent important decision in applying to the protection of animals an important exception to the requirement of a search warrant.

Five of ISAR’s major cases, spanning more than three decades, are:

Jones v. Butz, 374 F.Supp. 1284 (SDNY, three-judge court, 1974), where Professor Holzer in behalf of Helen Jones, ISAR, and other plaintiffs challenged sections of the federal Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act on the ground that its religious exemption—which effectively nullified the act’s protection for countless livestock animals—violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Jones v. Beame, 45 N.Y.2d 402 (1978), where Professor Holzer in behalf of Helen Jones and ISAR sued to close the Central Park zoo in New York City on the ground that the treatment of the animals confined there violated the anti-cruelty statutes of the State of New York.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, Florida, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), where Professor Holzer in behalf of ISAR and eleven other animal protection organizations filed amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States in support of Hialeah’s ordinance that prohibited the Santeria cult from sacrificing animals as part of an alleged religious ceremony.

O’Sullivan v. City of San Diego, 2007 WL 2570783 (2007)—a case which attempted to protect the federal recognized seal rookery at Casa Beach in La Jolla, California, from depredation by swimmers and fishermen— where Professor Holzer in behalf of ISAR and several other animal protection organizations consulted with the lawyers for the plaintiffs and submitted amicus curiae briefs in the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the State of California.

United States v. Stevens--a case currently pending oral argument in fall 2009 in the Supreme Court of the United States. A lower federal appeals court declared unconstitutional a federal statute criminalizing the making, selling or possessing depictions of torture and killing of animals. ISAR has filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the government.

The City of Hialeah  and City of San Diegoand Stevens cases are good examples of ISAR’s amicus curiae participation in animal rights cases on the appellate level, and of what can be accomplished in appellate courts on behalf of animals. 

Now, as an adjunct to ISAR's other legal programs on behalf of animal rights we have instituted a program of commentary and interviews by Professor Holzer. 

Interviews will be available to purchase for download as they become available.

Professor Henry Mark Holzer interviews Lt. Col. Mark Eichelman about his recent article in 16 Animal Law 153 (2009)  entitled "Ringling Brothers on Trial: Circus Elephants and the Endangered Species Act," which discusses the dismissed case against Ringling Brothers circus for allegedly abusing the elephants it exhibits.  Much of the Holzer-Eichelman discussion centers around the legal problem of "standing to sue"--that is, who is entitled to bring a case against humans on behalf of animals.
Duration of download: 00:47:50

FREE DOWNLOAD

Professor Henry Mark Holzer interviews Elizabeth DeCoux of Florida Coastal Law School about her recent article in 16 Animal Law 9 (2009) entitled, "Speaking for the Modern Prometheus: The Significance of Animal Suffering to the Abolition Movement," which explores the distinction between "Abolitionists" and "Welfarists," and argues strongly that each movement could benefit from understanding, and even utilizing, techniques employed by the other.

Duration of download: 1:07:36
FREE DOWNLOAD

"Unpublished Insights Into United States v. Stevens"  
Duration of download: 00:28:21
FREE DOWNLOAD


"ISAR's Analysis Of The Supreme Court Oral Argument In United States v. Stevens"
Duration of download: 00:29:52
FREE DOWNLOAD