PAWING OPEN THE COURTHOUSE DOOR: WHY ANIMALS' INTERESTS SHOULD MATTER WHEN COURTS GRANT STANDING

St. John's Law Review, Winter 2006 by Magnotti, Lauren

"[T]he difference in mind between man and the higher animals ... is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, [etc.], of which man boasts, may be found ... in the lower animals."

-Charles Darwin1

INTRODUCTION

Animals do not have legal personhood and are treated as property under the law.2 While such a legal classification may not comport with people's common interactions with animals, it is nonetheless the prevailing law. Due to their status as property, animals have no standing to bring suit themselves,3 and individuals and organizations that bring legal actions on behalf of mistreated animals regularly find their suits dismissed due to lack of standing.4 Courts view the abuse of animals as peripheral to the "real injury" of the person bringing suit, creating a fallacy in these cases whereby an injury to a person is often fabricated so that the real case to protect the animals may ensue.5

In order for any cause of action to proceed, the party bringing suit must meet the constitutional requirements for standing.6 First, the party bringing suit must have experienced an injury in fact and, second, the plaintiffs injuries must have been caused by the defendant.7 Finally, the court must be able to redress the plaintiffs injury if the plaintiff prevails on the merits.8 In addition to the constitutionally mandated requirements, the courts may impose prudential requirements before holding that a party has standing. These include the general prohibition of raising a third party's legal rights, the requirement that the suit fall within the "zone of interests" of the law at issue, and the disallowance of generalized grievances.9 Thus, to have its case heard in court, a plaintiff must show that it has experienced a direct injury; arguing that an animal has been injured is inadequate to establish standing.10

The constitutional injury-in-fact requirement creates a unique problem for protecting abused animals. Since no direct harm is committed against the group or individual bringing the suit, suits brought to protect the interests of abused animals are frequently dismissed because the plaintiffs cannot prove a direct injury in fact.11

While judges have slowly become more permissive in granting standing to those trying to protect animals, even the most progressive courts directly hold that the standing they grant is not premised on the mistreatment of the animal itself. For example, in American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus,12 the court was innovative in holding that standing was based largely on a former circus employee's emotional attachment to the elephants that were being abused.13 The court also expressly held, however, that standing was not based on any continuing injury to the animal.14

While animals have historically been viewed as property under the law, it cannot be denied that animals are qualitatively different than the average piece of personal property, such as a desk, sweater, or television. Animals are living beings capable of feeling physical pain, experiencing varying degrees of rational thought,15 and forming seemingly emotional attachments.16 Outside of the legal context, it would be quite outdated-if indeed it was ever plausible-to presume that a family's dog or cat is not distinct from that family's couch or dining room table. Within the legal context, however, courts have adopted the view that animals can be treated under the law as any other inanimate item of personal property.17 Such a legal stance is inconsistent with society's general notions of animals,18 as well as a rational, common-sense view of animals.

The issue of standing is of serious import to the protection of animals as it is the threshold issue before the merits of the case can even be considered. While the relief sought in these suits is generally an injunction to stop the mistreatment of the animals and/or to have the animals removed from the custody of the abusers, the current law forces plaintiffs to generate bases for standing that are essentially unrelated to the relief sought. As a result, the standing alleged in these suits is a legal fiction, since the injury being pleaded is often not the injury with which the parties are typically concerned.19 To avoid these legal fictions, courts faced with the standing issue should become more progressive by viewing animals as beings with independent interests. This would not require an abandonment of the legal classification of animals as property; rather, courts could recognize that animals are a special type of property entitled to certain legal protections not afforded to typical inanimate objects.

I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW: WHY ARE ANIMALS TREATED AS OBJECTS IN WESTERN CULTURE?

While it is impossible within the confines of this Note to cover thoroughly the origins of animals' treatment as mere objects, a brief overview of some of the more influential sources is provided. It should be preliminarily noted that while the concept of animals as objects is prevalent throughout the West, many Eastern cultures teach great respect for all living beings, and those cultures do not espouse the views below.20