As an attorney, I enjoy a good joke about my profession.

But as I scan the horizon on animal rights issues, there’s something that is no joke: The number of animal activist attorneys is on the rise.

Fueled by the deep pockets of the animal rights movement, these activist attorneys are pursuing legal “personhood” for animals – a legal standard that is designed to spell the end to animal agriculture, zoos, aquariums, and even pet ownership.

It may sound crazy, but major institutions in the United States have gotten on board.

George Washington University announced in April that it is partnering with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an activist group, to develop the Animal Legal Education Initiative. The initiative is “dedicated to developing animal law as a stand-alone legal discipline that is fully integrated into legal education,” according to the university.

George Washington University wants to become the preeminent university for animal rights lawyers–but it’s facing stiff competition.

Harvard has an animal law and public policy program founded in 2014. Its executive director is the former legislative director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Yale has an animal law program, too. Its faculty co-director is also a senior executive at the Humane Society of the United States, and its litigation fellow was general counsel of Mercy for Animals.

These programs provide new resources for activists to continue their legal work. One Harvard policy fellow was described as “a leading voice and litigator on the ‘humane-washing’ of animal products—the pervasive use of misleading marketing and advertising to conceal products’ inhumane origins.”

“Her work in this sphere has resulted in several companies changing their marketing and animal welfare practices,” the school bragged.

Over time, these programs accomplish several things.

First, it legitimizes the activists’ legal advocacy and brings it into more mainstream thought. After all, there was a time when the term “lab grown meat” would have made people queasy. Now, millions are invested in startups that want to bring it to market.

Second, it creates an army of people whose skillset is litigating animal issues–and not in a way that is friendly to farmers, ranchers, or other animal-use industries. Third, by inching toward legal “personhood” for animals, these programs create potential for a dramatic shift in our legal system. The goal would allow animals to be plaintiffs in lawsuits equivalent to human or corporation standing.

In practice, this will mean any lawyer could declare an elephant, cow, or other animal a plaintiff and claim to speak on their behalf.

It’s not hard to see where that leads: “Your Honor, my client does not want to be confined and then eaten”.

The Nonhuman Rights Project has brought several cases in recent years seeking to get a court in New York to open the door to personhood. This month, they have an appeal ahead of the state’s highest court about a zoo elephant. They’ve lost in earlier attempts.

Today, even progressive judges may frown on the idea of animal personhood. But down the line, with the growth of animal law programs there will be more judges sympathetic to animal rights. And a strategic approach will embrace “judge shopping” to improve the odds for favorable rulings.

In 2000, the Animal Legal Defense Fund had 12 student chapters. Today it has 200.

The problem is hiding in plain sight.

Question: what can we do now to stop it?

This year, an Idaho state representative introduced a bill to explicitly prohibit animals from being granted legal “personhood” in the state. It’s the first such bill I’m aware of, and it reminds me of something similar.

Some years ago, the National Rifle Association began pushing constitutional amendments establishing the right to hunt and fish. Voters generally passed the measures overwhelmingly; 23 out of 24 have passed since 1996.

Hunting and fishing currently enjoy broad cultural and social support–which is the best time to enact an insurance policy in the form of extra legal protections in the form of a constitutional amendment against anti-hunting litigation and future legislation.

Something similar could be done on the issue of animal agriculture and/or other uses of animals.

There’s also a question of what students are learning and how to influence that captive audience. . HSUS and other activists are recruiting at vet schools, too, not just law schools. They know their advocacy carries more credibility when it comes in a white coat. (The same is also true for farmers and ranchers looking to educate people about husbandry practices.) Who is educating vet students about dog breeding, livestock husbandry, and other areas where activists push misinformation?

As opposed to most corporate interests, the animal liberation movement is playing a long game. Planting seeds they expect to bear fruit. And like many other problems, if left alone, farm interests will be hiring their own defense counsel.

Animal lawyers make kangaroo courts

Join for free* to continue reading.