iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Christopher Berry

MysticWolfien Butterflies, Moths @bluegreenandtrue.bsky.social · 03/02/2026

The NhRP has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit on behalf of approximately 2,000 beagles and puppies subjected to routine cruelty and mistreatment at Ridglan Farms in Wisconsin, seeking recognition of their right to be free from cruelty.

082

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 29/08/2025

Was a pleasure chatting with @marisul.bsky.social on @ourhenhouse.org Animal Law Podcast. Highlight for me was learning that someone has taken up intrinsic valuation as their pet animal law cause because I’ve never read a good explanation why this doesn’t fill the companion animal valuation gap.

041

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 29/08/2025

Thanks for having me! Excellent editorial judgment on the quotes you pulled for the promos.

000

Reposted by Christopher Berry

Animal Activist Legal Defense Project @aaldp-du.bsky.social · 05/08/2025

Thank you Kristen Stilt @harvardanimallaw.bsky.social‬, ‪@animal-justice.bsky.social,‬ @climatedefense.bsky.social‬, animal law scholars, ‪@nonhumanrights.bsky.social,‬ @ccrjustice.org @aclu-norcal.bsky.social, @nlgnews.bsky.social docs.google.com/document/d/1...

0169

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 07/08/2025

But, as we argue, ensuring the common law’s just and rational development is a core responsibility of thecourts. In the words of the California Supreme Court: “Courts [must] remain alert to their obligation and opportunity to change the common law when reason and equity demand it.” 4/

110

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 07/08/2025

Also at stake in this appeal is the critically important question: who decides whether animals matter? The prosecution is arguing that only the legislature can expand the necessity defense to prevent animal cruelty. /3

110

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 07/08/2025

The legal principle at stake transcends any single case. It goes to the heart of how our legal system views animals. Are they “things” or are they beings who matter? /2

110

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 07/08/2025

On its surface, this case involving chickens, ducks, & criminal trespass may seem far from the @nonhumanrights.bsky.social’s ordinary work. But when a court categorically excludes animals from a legal doctrine that protects against significant evil, it sets a dangerous precedent for all animals. 1/

156

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

SCOTUS says equity ‘moulds each decree to necessities of the case’ then limits equitable relief to whatever a pre-1789 case happened to use? Should’ve been abuse of discretion review w/ weights on the scale for ahistorical nature. Not a hard crop. #UniversalInjunctions #legalnews

000

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 19/06/2025

(For anybody looking for the opinion you can find it here: Deblase v. Hill, 2025 WL 1696814, Supreme Court of New York for Kings County, Index No. 522689/2023 (June 17, 2025))

000

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 18/06/2025

Today’s recognition by the NY Supreme Court for Kings County that Duke was a family member shows the justice system at its best: fulfilling its fundamental duty to deliver justice based on facts and reason rather than an antiquated legal fiction that animals are mere things. 🧵/🧵

130

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 18/06/2025

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

110

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 18/06/2025

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...

110

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 18/06/2025

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...

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 18/06/2025

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...

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 18/06/2025

The facts alleged: Plaintiff was walking the family dog, Duke, when driver ran a stop sign hitting and killing Duke in front of plaintiff who narrowly escaped danger herself. Plaintiff sought emotional damages. Driver argued dogs are just property. Court sought amicus briefing to resolve. 2/

100

Reposted by Christopher Berry

The Nonhuman Rights Project @nonhumanrights.bsky.social · 09/06/2025

NhRP Executive Director @chrandberry.bsky.social was interviewed for @reason.com on the topic of #AnimalPersonhood: “courts are trying to police a boundary between humans and animals and not recognizing that things don't always fall into a neat dichotomy." Read in full➡️📰 reason.com/2025/05/24/w...

reason.com

Cocaine hippos, monkey copyrights, and a horse named justice: The debate over animal personhood

Are human courts the best venue to protect wild animals?

083

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 04/04/2025

Can’t believe we missed the April Fools press release that penguins have a right to be free from tariffs by one day.

010

Reposted by Christopher Berry

Animal Activist Legal Defense Project @aaldp-du.bsky.social · 09/01/2025

A Wisconsin judge has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate & potentially prosecute criminal #animalcruelty at Ridglan Farms, one of the last 2 remaining large US breeders of dogs for animal experimentation. One more nail in the coffin of dog experimentation! docs.google.com/document/d/1...

12210

Reposted by Christopher Berry

Camille Labchuk @camillelabchuk.bsky.social · 10/01/2025

Prosecutors often treat commercial animal operations as above the law, even in the face of egregiously unlawful cruelty. It's a huge victory to have convinced a court that this dog experiment breeder should be investigated by a special prosecutor!

031

Reposted by Christopher Berry

Yvette Tapptico @yvettetapptico.bsky.social · 12/12/2024

CO’s highest court heard arguments made by NhRP for right the liberty of 5 elephants held captive in the Cheyenne Mt Zoo.The key issue before the 6 justices is whether CO common law protects an individual’s rt to liberty even if they aren’t human nonhumanrightsproject.donorsupport.co/page/endofye...

nonhumanrightsproject.donorsupport.co

Building a more just world for all.

Make an end-of-year gift to the Nonhuman Rights Project to help power our unique fight for legal rights for nonhuman animals in 2025 and beyond. Through December 31st, every donation will be matched u...

011

Reposted by Christopher Berry

Eugene Vinitsky 🍒 @eugenevinitsky.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

Does everyone in your community agree on some folk knowledge that isn’t published anywhere? Put it in a paper! It’s a pretty valuable contribution

2420226

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 27/11/2024

Someone must be coughing up mad amounts of money to the ox tail and beef tallow influencer army

000

Reposted by Christopher Berry

ourhonor.bsky.social @ourhonor.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

Exercising your voice matters—whether it’s voting or participating in professional organizations like the AVMA. Policies won’t change unless we speak up. 💬 Veterinarians have a platform to create meaningful change—so let’s use it. #AVMA #VeterinaryAdvocacy #onehealth #foodtruth #nomv #vetmed

061

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

An entire dozen of us to start! Let me know who I'm missing. go.bsky.app/KjXfbh6

3164

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

19/19 Anyway, if courts recognized that animals have standing, then redressing their legal injuries when the law is violated would be a straightforward endeavor. Until then, animal advocates must rely on convoluted injuries to humans and corporations in order to have a day in court.

141

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

18/ The dogs at this puppy mill have a legal interest in Animal Welfare Act compliance. It's not rocket science. In fact, the status quo of acting like the dogs have no legal interest in AWA compliance is such an odd argument that it reminds me of gaslighting.

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

17/ The second solution is more straightforward: courts should recognize that animals themselves have injuries. The test for standing is whether there is an "injury" to a "cognizable legal interest."

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

16/ I see at least two solutions to this problem. One solution is, as I indicated earlier, Article III should be construed to err on side of flexible standing rather than imposing an onerous standing bar.

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

15/ I don't know how the district court will rule on it. If USDA's unlawful licensing is causing ASPCA to use resources that could be redirected elsewhere then USDA should be held accountable rather than having burden fall on animal advocates. But the trend line has been hostile to advocate standing

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

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.

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

13/ There are many examples of this, but the most relevant instance happened earlier this year in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case. The plaintiffs in that non-animal case alleged their own flavor of Havens standing and lost, prompting a strong rebuff by Justice Alito.

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

12/ After all, remember: Article III says nothing about "injuries" or "standing", so we should err on the side of a lower bar rather than a higher one when there is any question. But SCOTUS and fed courts seem happy to err on side of higher and higher bar for standing.

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

11/ There has been tension whether it's the unlawful thing causing the org to engage in counteraction, or whether the org's decision to engage is a self-inflicted injury. Both views seem to be true, and therefore there *should* be standing imo b/c unlawful thing is a but-for cause of the harm.

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

10/ The gist for "Havens standing" (as we call it in the biz) is: (a) someone is doing unlawful thing to animals, (b) that unlawful thing is causing advocacy org to spend resources to counteract the unlawful thing, and (c) ordering the unlawful thing to stop means org can stop counteraction efforts.

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

9/ One of the few staples to establish standing as an animal advocate has been organizational standing under an older Supreme Court case called Havens Realty Corp. supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...

supreme.justia.com

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982)

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

8/ Anyway, outside a few idiosyncratic events, federal courts have yet to recognize any nonhuman animal's legal standing to protect their legal interests in court. Therefore, animal advocates like the ASPCA (and others) file cases based on injury to *humans or corporations* (who do have standing).

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

6/ For a variety of reasons (read Cass Sunstein's *What's Left Standing After Lujan* to find out why these reasons are bad), this plain language of Article III has been stretched to require the plaintiff have "standing", i.e. that they suffer an injury to a "legally cognizable interest."

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

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[.]"

100

Christopher Berry @chrandberry.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

4/ ASPCA said that re-licensing the puppy mill network was unlawful under Animal Welfare. Seems straightforward: USDA is doing something illegal, so go to court and see if a judge agrees. But courts don't recognize legal standing for animals, so things are not so simple.

110