Benavidez Law Blog

In Pennsylvania, service dogs cannot receive food stamps.

Source: ABA Journal (Martha Neil)

A Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that a disabled man's service dog cannot be counted as part of his nutritional requirements for the purpose of determining food stamp eligibility, because the dog is not a human:

A service dog doesn't qualify for food stamps, a Pennsylvania court has ruled, because he isn't human.

But the animal's disabled owner, James Douris, may not have to argue the legal issue on his own much longer. Although he lost a pro se Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court case arguing that the dog's nutritional requirements should be taken into account, as a household member, in determining his owner's food stamp allotment, Douris says his phone has been ringing off the hook since the court's decision yesterday, reports the L.A. Unleashed blog of the Los Angeles Times.

Among those calling are lawyers who want to help him with an appeal, he says. Even the court that ruled against him, upholding an earlier determination by the Department of Public Welfare, apparently would have liked to see a different result:

"This court is sympathetic to [Douris'] argument that his service dog is a necessity for him due to his disability, and that he lacks the funds to properly feed his service dog," states Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer in the written opinion. "We hope that there is some other state or federal program that might provide for the maintenance and upkeep of [the] dog."

Chris Wencker argues at Court of Appeals

Last week, the firm's attorney Chris Wencker argued at the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1, in Phoenix. Chris was arguing in support of the brief the firm filed on behalf of Animal Defense League of Arizona in the case Kaufman v. Langhofer. You can hear Chris's arguments online at http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/oa/CR1-10-28-09_CV080655.mp3. His arguments begin at 14:06 into the file.

My interview with Voiceless: The Fund for Animals

A little while ago, I completed a written interview for an acquaintance of mine who happens to be General Counsel for Voiceless, a non-profit organization in Australia that advocates for animals. Please have a look at the interview here.

US Supreme Court Decides - Navy 1, Whales 0

Winter v. National Resources Defense Counsel, Inc.

United States Supreme Court

Argued October 8, 2008 - Decided November 12, 2008

The full opinion can be found here.

In March of 2007, the National Resources Defense Counsel filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the United States Navy in an attempt to prevent the Navy from using Mid-Frequency Active sonar in training exercises off the coast of Southern California.  The National Resources Defense Cousel sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the training exercises violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other federal laws.  The waters off the coast of California contain at least 37 species of marine mammmals.  The National Resources Defense Counsel asserted that the MFA sonar causes serious injury to these mammals.

In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court held in favor of the Navy.  The Court stated "the Navy's need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs the interests advanced by the plantiffs."

Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy joined an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts.  Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Stevens joined as to the concurrence.  Justices Ginsburg and Souter dissented outright.