Breed-Specific Legislation Legal Action Fund
to ending breed-specific legislation
It is our position that breed-specific legislation violates the 5th and 14th amendments. These bans often include a variety of dogs, not just those perceived to be “pit bulls.”
We think BSL is the cruelest law pet owners can be subjected to and we are taking it head-on in a way that has never been done before. On behalf of dog owners, we have hired a national law firm well-versed in constitutional law and we work with lawyers who have a thorough understanding of the canine genome.
We plan to eradicate BSL in the United States. You can help us prevent family pets from being forcibly taken from their homes by donating to our BSL Legal Action Fund.
Council Bluffs, Iowa
Council Bluffs’ “pit bull” dog ban was established in 2004. Since then, it has violated the constitutional rights of dog owners. We’re helping local dog owners take the city to court, because no one should have to choose between their family member and their home.
Williston, North Dakota
Williston’s “pit bull” dog ban has been in effect since 1987. In that time, it has been arbitrarily enforced based on animal control officers’ subjective opinion of what constitutes a “pit bull.” Fines and charges vary and seem to impact underserved communities more negatively. This is consistent with what we know of breed-specific legislation – it is a way for officials to enact discrimination against citizens..
Most Recent Win
Sioux City, Iowa
Animal Farm Foundation invested $300k in a groundbreaking lawsuit fighting legislation that discriminates against dog owners in Sioux City, Iowa, where, until November 25, 2019, it was legal for the government to take your pet away simply because of what your dog looks like.
The ban, also known as breed-specific legislation, became law in 2006. For over a decade, countless pet dogs have been seized from their homes and destroyed. Not because of behavior, just because Sioux City said the dogs were “pit bulls.”
In 2016, three women filed suit in federal district court against the City, the city manager, and the Sioux City Animal Adoption & Rescue Center operator. Much of the testimony for the defense, especially the testimony by Cindy Rarrat, reveals the racism and classism behind this legislation.
The lawsuit forced the city to take dog owners and advocates seriously. One city council member even cited the lawsuit as his reason for voting to repeal the ban. City officials knew that breed-specific legislation wouldn’t hold up in court, so they voted to repeal before it ever came to that.
Your donation will help us continue to fight discrimination against dog owners and keep dogs and people together.
Because all dogs and all people
Listen to us discuss our history fighting discrimination
Our first case
Dias v Denver in 2007/8
The first BSL case we co-funded was Dias v Denver in 2007/8. The case ended when the dog owners accepted a settlement but not before the federal district court hinted in its opinion that BSL violates the 5th and 14th amendments.
James Sak and Peggy Leifer vs city of Aurelia, I
In 2011, the city of Aurelia took away James Sak’s service dog, Snickers. Service dogs are considered medical equipment under the law. The city did
a snapshot of our legal efforts
Criscuolo v. City of Moses Lake
Result: Repeal and payment of $14k in fees/costs
Newman v. City of Payette and Fruitland
Result: repeal and some financial payment
Douglas v. County of Payette
Result: repeal and payment
Denton v. City of Yakima
Result: repeal and financial payment
News and Articles
Dangerous dog registries fail to put the responsibility on the dog owner and instead deflect blame to the dog.
Landlords cite liability risks as justification for these policies. We did a deep dive to find out what the dog bite related liability risks really are.