United States

Summary: This subpart concerns accessibility of aircraft and service animals. Per section 382.72, airlines must allow a service animal to accompany a passenger with a disability. They must not deny transportation to a service animal based on the animal's breed or type or on the basis that its carriage may offend or annoy carrier personnel or persons traveling on the aircraft. The next section describes the process for determining that an animal is service animal. If a passenger with a disability seeks to travel with a service animal, airlines may require the passenger to provide them, as a condition of permitting the service animal to travel in the cabin, a current completed U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation Form.

Summary: This Washington regulation was amended in 2021 to allow dogs under the control of their owners to be in the outdoor area of the premises of a food establishment. The subsection, which became effective on March 1, 2022, states that dogs may in the outdoor area if certain conditions are met. These include that the permit holder has an approved plan to allow dogs, the dogs are on a leash and under control of their owners, the dogs do not go inside the food establishment, the dogs are not allowed on furniture, the outdoor area is not used for food preparation or utensil storage, the food establishment provides food and water containers for the dogs that are not washed inside, food employees do not have direct contact with any dogs, the area is kept free of animal waste, and the permit holder ensures compliance with local ordinances. In addition, the permit holder may allow dogs in the INDOOR area of a food establishment if the permit holder has notified the regulatory agency in advance. The food establishment must only pour beverages from a food processing plant and serve "ready-to-eat" food options in original packaging and there must be signage informing customers that the facility allows dogs inside. The other requirements for the outdoor area also apply to indoor areas.

Summary: This Iowa regulation was amended in 2020 by adding subsection 31.1(14) to allow "pet dogs" on exterior premises of a food establishment, including outdoor patio and outdoor dining areas, provided the food establishment meets all of the listed requirements. These requirements include: having a separate outdoor entrance; not allowing food preparation in the outdoor area or storage of reusable customer utensils; mandating that food or water dishes provided to dogs are single-use and disposable or come from the pet owners themselves; prohibiting contact between employees and the dogs; making sure the outdoor area is kept clean; ensuring that the area is immediately cleaned and sanitized if body fluids are excreted; making sure the outdoor area is not fully enclosed; requiring the removal of disruptive pet dogs; and posting of rules at the entrance. These rules include the leashing of dogs at all times, the prohibiting of dogs in the interior of the food establishment and on furniture, and the requirement to notify employees if the dog deposits any body fluid.

Summary: This statute concerns the powers and duties of Delaware's departments of health and human services. A 2020 amendment in subsection (3)(u)(1) states that, "[n]otwithstanding any regulation to the contrary, the owner of a food establishment or beer garden may permit leashed dogs in the owner's beer garden or on the owner's licensed outdoor patio."

Summary: This Washington regulation generally prohibits live animals on the premises of a food establishment. However, subsection (4) now allows dogs to be present in the outdoor area of such premises if certain conditions are met. These include the permit holder (the food establishment) possessing an approved plan allowing dogs in its outdoor premises. Dogs must be on a leash and under control of their handlers. Dogs must not go through the interior of the food establishment and must not go on tables, chairs, or other fixtures. If the food establishment provides containers for food or drink for the dogs, those containers must not be washed in the food establishment. Food employees must not have contact with the dogs and the area musts be maintained so that it is clean of animal waste. Adequate signage must notify patrons of the facility's decision to allow dogs.

Summary: Wisconsin revised the State of Wisconsin Emergency Response Plan (WERP) in 2021. Emergency Support Function (ESF) 11 and Attachment 1 both relate to animals and disaster planning.

Summary: This excerpt of West Virginia's Emergency Operations Plan contains Emergency Support Function 11, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Within ESF 11, there is a brief mention of household pets.

Summary: These rules and regulations are established to provide minimum standards to govern all licensed or registered animal care facilities in Rhode Island. They serve as standards for the construction and maintenance of such facilities, the care of animals in those facilities, as well as the criteria for inspectors to use when conducting inspections for licensure or in response to a complaint concerning their operation. They are considered minimum standards that must be maintained.

Summary: Several animal welfare organizations including PETA sought to conduct undercover animal cruelty investigations in North Carolina, but were unable to do so because North Carolina's Property Protection Act prohibited employees from entering nonpublic areas of employer's premises to record or remove information and using that information to breach their duty of loyalty. PETA and other plaintiffs argue that the act violates their protected First Amendment rights and functions as a discriminatory speech restriction. North Carolina argues that the restrictions on speech are incidental, and the act protects against trespass and disloyalty. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint and the organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. On remand here, the District Court held that the information gathered by the animal welfare organizations was protected speech and, thus, subject to strict scrutiny. .

Summary: In 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“ASPCA”) sued Defendants-Appellees the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) alleging that APHIS followed a "policy or practice" of violating FOIA for failing to comply with requests for records related to the agency response to maintenance of animal welfare standards and licensing of animal dealers/exhibitors. This suit was prompted by APHIS' 2017 decommissioning of two public databases that allow users (including the ASPCA) to access records on commercial breeding facilities including inspection reports and photographs. APHIS contends that there was not a policy or practice that violated FOIA because it was corrected as the result of an intervening act of Congress, specifically, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020. In April of 2020, APHIS moved for summary judgment on the pleadings arguing that ASPCA failed to state a policy or practice claim related to the decommissioned databases and that it makes every effort to respond to FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment on the pleadings, finding that while the decommissioning of the databases did indeed impair the ability of the ASPCA to receive prompt FOIA requests, ASPCA did not establish that the court must intervene to correct such a policy or practice and Congress already acted to correct the breakdown through the appropriations bill. On ASPCA's timely appeal here, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 reversed the records access problems. While the ASPCA contended that there were certain records like photographs that were removed from the database, there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that such record requests would not be processed in the future. In essence, this court agreed that the intervening act of Congress by the change in law corrected the action. Thus, a broad order by the court mandating changes to the FOIA process would amount to an unlawful advisory opinion because there is no policy or practice currently occurring by APHIS. The district court's judgment was affirmed.