Volume 31.2
Miranda Herreid, Factory Farms and Labor Law: Can Unionization Get the Job Done?
At different moments in U.S. history, workers have joined together to fight for a better future. Now more than ever, as industries become increasingly consolidated and powerful, workers’ ability to band together and advocate for their rights is integral. Recent victories in labor rights have not yet made their way to the industrial animal agricultural sphere. This is unfortunate, as the conditions at slaughterhouses and concentrated animal feeding operations are extractive and abusive towards workers and animals alike. In the past, strong union presence in slaughterhouses aided workers in achieving wage increases and job stability. However, this resulted in extreme industry pushback, from which these unions have yet to recover. While labor conditions at slaughterhouses are bad, conditions experienced by other animal agricultural workers are worse due to a lack of federal labor rights protections. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the legislation providing the federally protected right to collectively bargain to American employees, has exemptions that capture entire swaths of the animal agricultural workforce. This exclusion has powerful consequences: workers can be fired for simply discussing their working conditions with colleagues. This Article argues that the agricultural exemption should be removed from the NLRA to give workers in industrial animal agriculture a long-overdue seat at the bargaining table. Due to the unlikelihood of achieving a revision of the NLRA, this Article explores other approaches for ameliorating the harm wrought by the agricultural exemption, such as instituting protections for exempted workers at the state level. It concludes with a number of suggestions for how legal advocates can empower industrial animal agricultural workers.
Animal law has grown exponentially since its genesis in the late 1970s. It is the subject of survey courses, seminars, clinics, and law reviews. But animal law per se has not made its way into the legal writing discipline, and its absence creates missed opportunities for legal writing instructors to improve our teaching and help our students develop critical lawyering skills. This Article argues that we should seize these opportunities and incorporate animal law into legal writing classes.
The Article begins by summarizing the argument and offering a general description of how legal writing professors and their students stand to benefit from animal law. Next, the Article provides a brief overview of animal law as both a legal practice area and an academic field. It then moves to a discussion of the specific ways in which animal law can improve legal writing pedagogy. These include the subject’s timeliness, novelty, and practicality, as well as its capacity to introduce students to emotionally challenging aspects of lawyering. The Article illustrates these benefits in action through accounts of animal law exercises that the author designed and assigned to his legal writing students, including an objective memorandum problem. The social justice issues implicated by such assignments reflect animal law and legal writing’s shared disciplinary commitment to compassionate yet practical lawyering. A Conclusion offers directions for future research on this topic and explains why using animal law to teach legal writing will benefit the entire legal profession.
According to the Pew Research Center, nearly all (97%) Americans with companion animals consider their “furbabies” to be members of the family. This is reflected in a number of other areas, from state and federal laws regarding emergency management that recognize four-legged members of the family unit to divorce and custody laws in multiple states that require courts to treat companion animals not as property, but as family members. Sociologists and psychologists have also documented the expanding recognition of the “multispecies family.” However, the majority of states’ laws still view companion animals as chattel property, even as more and more jurisdictions allow the recovery of intangible damages for the loss of such companion animals. But what about bystander recovery?
Traditional bystander recovery permits a plaintiff to recover for the emotional distress brought on by contemporaneously perceiving the death of a close family member caused by a third party’s negligence. This Article discusses an important new legal trend, as courts around the country have begun to address whether to allow bystander recovery claims for witnessing the death of a companion animal to go forward. As this Article highlights through examination of actual cases, courts nationwide have expanded the definition of “close family member” beyond the traditional norms, so why not include the four-legged members of the family? This Article offers critical insights into the legal arguments, both pro and con.
Jeff Sebo, Insects, AI Systems, and the Future of Legal Personhood
This Article makes a case for insect and AI legal personhood. Humans share the world not only with large animals like chimpanzees and elephants but also with small animals like ants and bees. In the future, we might also share the world with sentient or otherwise morally significant AI systems. These realities raise questions about what kind of legal status insects, AI systems, and other nonhumans should have in the future. At present, debates about legal personhood mostly exclude these kinds of individuals. However, I argue that our current framework for assessing legal personhood, coupled with our current framework for assessing risk and uncertainty, imply that we should treat these kinds of individuals as legal persons. I also argue that we have good reason to accept this conclusion rather than alter these frameworks.
Animal Law Review is located in Wood Hall on the Law Campus.
MSC: 51
Editor in Chief
Camille Bond
eic-animallaw@lclark.edu
Managing Editor
Katherine Engelken
me-animallaw@lclark.edu
Executive Editors
Brittany Bennett
Dennis Hall
ee-animallaw@lclark.edu
Animal Law Review
Lewis & Clark Law School
10101 S. Terwilliger Boulevard MSC 51
Portland OR 97219

