Apple Podcasts
RSS
Amazon Music
Spotify
YouTube
PocketCasts
CastBox
Player.fm
TuneIn
Audible
App not listed? Try this RSS linkThis episode of The Hen Report features Mariann Sullivan and constitutional law professor Michael Dorf, filling in for Jasmin, for a wide-ranging conversation connecting Supreme Court doctrine to the fight for animal rights. Dorf draws sharp parallels between the catch-22 legal standards trapping activists like Wayne Hsiung and the contradictory hoops required for habeas corpus relief, arguing both function as reassuring “lies” that mask how little protection the law actually provides. The episode also digs into the recent birthright citizenship case, the case for and limits of extending constitutional rights to sentient animals, and why cruelty laws’ vague “necessity” standard lets outdated practices persist unchallenged.
- Michael Dorf breaks down how legal necessity defenses and habeas corpus doctrines create impossible catch-22s that mirror the obstacles facing animal cruelty investigations and activism
- Analysis of the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling and what the 14th Amendment’s broad language means for expanding legal protections beyond its original intent
- A critical look at sentience-based constitutionalism, including the practical and democratic challenges of extending constitutional rights to non-human animals
- Why animal cruelty statutes using terms like “necessary” or “unjustifiable” should be (though generally aren’t) interpreted to reflect modern ethical standards
- Updates on the Save Our Bacon Act, Oregon’s IP 28 ballot initiative, and grassroots lobbying efforts shaping the future of farmed animal welfare policy
RESOURCES
-
-
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Mariann Sullivan: Welcome to The Hen Report. This is Mariann Sullivan. Jasmin had some family affairs to take care of today, and everything is fine. But today I am delighted to be joined once again by wingman Michael Dorf, who is of course a professor of constitutional law at Cornell, author of like a gazillion things, which I'm not gonna try to remember, and one of our very, very favorite animal advocates.
And is also having a very, very busy week because the Supreme Court, you know? Like, that's kind of what he does. But he, he's joining us anyway, so thank you so much, Michael.
Michael Dorf: Thank you so much for having me. I have, big wings to fill in, Jasmin's absence, but I'll do my best.
Mariann Sullivan: I, I'm not gonna say I'm sure you can because e- what, no matter what I say there, it's gonna be bad. Yeah.
All right, just a quick reminder about The Our Hen House podcast, Rising Anxieties Tuesdays, Hen Report, this, on Thursdays, the long-form interview on Fridays, bonus for flock members comes out on Monday.
We're podcasts, we're on YouTube, hit like, subscribe, all that. All right. Michael, what's happening in Ithaca? Like, I haven't seen you in so long
Michael Dorf: It's terrible. Ever since you, retired from teaching your animal law class, I don't get to see you in Ithaca, and I don't get to Rochester as often as I ought to. You, you don't get to Rochester ever, so there you go.
could
Mariann Sullivan: Alright.
Well, you don't come to see me.
Michael Dorf: so let's see. I'm going to a nice potluck tonight, vegan potluck at the home of, a, couple of vegans, including one well-known animal, rights advocate, Eric Lindstrom. and so they're
Mariann Sullivan: Nice
Michael Dorf: Fourth of July vegan potluck on the 1st of July. so, that'll be nice. It's actually
Mariann Sullivan: Is it gonna be air-conditioned? It's very, very hot here.
Michael Dorf: It, probably be moved indoors is my guess.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah
Michael Dorf: yeah, it's very hot here as well. but, you know, I-- we don't know why. can't
Mariann Sullivan: Right. No. I think I mentioned before, I got this from somebody else. We're, we're, we're entering the find out part of the fuck around and find out climate change endeavor.
Michael Dorf: That part is going to last a while, I think. Yes
Anyway, yeah, so it's very nice. I had a couple of interesting, vegan experiences over the last few days. So over the weekend, I went to a birthday party for a colleague of mine, who's... I'm, I'm-- I'd say we're friends, but you know, mostly professional friends.
And so he had a lot of his oth- other colleagues there. It was a really lovely party, and I was really touched by how many vegan items they had, and they were labeled vegan, including like... So
Mariann Sullivan: Nice
Michael Dorf: know, a make your own tortilla kind of thing, burrito kind of thing, and they had vegan cheese and vegan sour cream in addition to beans and things.
So it
Mariann Sullivan: Impressive
Michael Dorf: and then the birthday cake wasn't vegan, but they'd gotten like some vegan cookies and...
Mariann Sullivan: Oh my God.
Michael Dorf: I,
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah
Michael Dorf: was literally the only vegan at this party of about fifty people. so, I, I thought that was really great. and this isn't a criticism, but it's just kind of an observation. So as I was leaving, you know, thanking and, you know, wishing happy birthday and all, one of the hosts was like, "Oh, take, take these cookies," which were the, they were the leftover vegan cookies.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah.
Michael Dorf: Because
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah.
Michael Dorf: was, you know, else are
Mariann Sullivan: don't want to eat them.
Michael Dorf: can't possibly eat them.
And they were delicious cookies, so I took them. But you know, it was, you know, kind of a reminder. And I had a similar
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Classic. Classic
Michael Dorf: I went with a friend from out of town and a couple of other friends and, my daughter, Amelia, who's home for a little while during the summer. we went to Moosewood, which as many listeners probably know, is a, very well-known vegetarian restaurant in Ithaca.
It's
Mariann Sullivan: Legendary
Michael Dorf: around since the '70s. And for a long time, it seemed sort of stuck in the '70s. They, they were very famous for their cookbook, which is a really good...
Mariann Sullivan: I had it, I think in the '70s
Michael Dorf: Very good 1970s era cookbook, and it didn't change. And the menu didn't change very much, but it's, it was sold to some other people who were running it kind of like as a, almost almost like a museum restaurant for years. then a few years ago, it was bought by, I think, the children of the pe- the original owners, and they've really done a
Mariann Sullivan: Oh
Michael Dorf: in, you know, reviving it and modernizing the menu. and but it's still a vegetarian, restaurant.
Mariann Sullivan: Don't, didn't they, they started serving fish at some point.
Michael Dorf: There was a period
Mariann Sullivan: Oh, good.
Michael Dorf: they don't, they don't at
Mariann Sullivan: Oh, good
Michael Dorf: but they-- You know, I would say about half of the items on the menu are natively vegan, and most of them have a little VO next to them, meaning vegan option. So of course, I ordered, you know, something vegan for my course. And then, you know, for the table, of the, of the six of us, two were vegans, Amelia and myself. So for the table, we ordered like one appetizer that was naturally vegan, and the other folks ordered, you know, two of the things that were vegetarian and asked for the cheese on the side. fine. You know, I don't have to eat the cheese. know, you could have gotten it just vegan, but then nobody ate the cheese.
And so-- And I, and I thought like, "Huh," like, "What is that? What's going on there?"
Mariann Sullivan: What's that all about?
Michael Dorf: a-and so I do think that there is a kind of residual marketing problem, right? It's not that they were... Like they didn't put the cheese on, that they knew what they were eating was vegan. B-but, but still they didn't-- Like they were hesitant to order the vegan option, So that's just a kind of couple of observations about
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. I think your, your interpretation's generous, but, but you know these people better than I do. It seemed a little, it seems a l- I, I don't know,
like,
Michael Dorf: that they were
Mariann Sullivan: res- r- there's a resistance. Like, "Damn it, we're not going to order... Even though we don't really even want the cheese, we're not gonna order the vegan thing."
Michael Dorf: Know, they were...
Mariann Sullivan: We won't give in to Michael Dorf
Michael Dorf: But nobody
Mariann Sullivan: and his fanaticism."
Michael Dorf: right? So, you know.
Mariann Sullivan: True.
Michael Dorf: So anyway, so that's, that's where we are.
Mariann Sullivan: Well, it's good. Well, I, I know you're, you're insanely busy, but you did agree to join us. I think you have a few things to say that you wanted to talk about that have to do with SCOTUS, surprisingly enough. but also I was pleased to see that you wanted to talk about a couple of things that, that we discussed in, in the interview last week, which was with Wayne Hsiung, Steffen Seitz, and Chris Carraway, and Steffen and Chris are both lawyers at, University of Denver, Animal Activist, Clinic, and Wayne of course is, Wayne.
And, something I discussed on Rising Anxieties, a suit by Legal Impact for Chickens, and I could not... When you told me this, I could not figure out what these had in common or why you wanted to talk about them, so, play through.
Michael Dorf: Well, you know, it's not just to demonstrate what a fan I am of the Our Hen House universe of podcasts. So for exa- for
Mariann Sullivan: It was a little suck upy. I'm not gonna deny it. Oh my God. Oh my God.
Michael Dorf: S-- but, okay, so here's what I saw as the connection. So during the, episode of the Animal Law Podcast, one of the points that came up was how the, appeals court in California made contradictory demands of the, of Wayne and his appeal, right?
So on the, with respect to the necessity defense. So on the one hand, this, I'm just repeating what was said on your, on your, your episode,
Mariann Sullivan: Right.
Michael Dorf: You need to show that you've exhausted all other means before you can break the law to, a le-- a greater evil. but on the other hand, you have to show that it's an emergency. If you go through all the steps to show you're exhausting other means, well, that's takes time, takes planning, and that shows it's not an emergency. So it's a catch 22. and I was struck by, the, a similarity with the discussion, in the story, you read about the, the case by Legal Impact for Chickens against Foster Farms, right? Of the requirement that the activists document, what's going on at the farm for a cruelty case if they wanna turn it over to, authorities. And the documentation involves extensive observation. And then there was this possibility that through the observation, they might themselves have some sort of complicity because they're standing by and doing nothing.
Now, I don't actually think that that's legally true. I don't think that the observation makes one complicit in the evil. That's just not the way our law generally works. But the, the setup was there as a possibility, I think the person who wrote the story that you were describing said that that doesn't seem fair.
And of course, it doesn't seem fair. But it, it does remind me of, b-both of these, situations remind me of what I have dealt with in my, wearing my other hat as a lawyer, sometimes working on, teaching about habeas corpus cases. now, I don't wanna get into all this 'cause it's incredibly complicated, as you know, and so it's complicated for lawyers, it's insane for non-lawyers. the, the, the main point I wanna make is that there are a series of doctrines that the Supreme Court has announced. Some of them they just made up. Others, they sort of made up interpreting various statutes that Congress has passed, whereby in order to qualify for, habeas corpus, which means release from prison or a new trial or something like that, on the grounds that you, there was some constitutional violation in y- the original proceeding.
In order to qualify, you need to pass through this hoop, but the legal test that enables you to pass through this hoop means you can't pass through this other hoop, which you also have to pass through to get relief, right? So it's, it's lit...
Mariann Sullivan: Does sound, it does sound similar
Michael Dorf: literally impossible, and the question is why would the law ever create such, circumstances?
And, and I think there are two possibilities. One is, well, sometimes these tests develop independently, and nobody's really thinking about how they operate as a system, and that's a kind of, you know, innocent explanation. But other times when you see this, I think what you're noticing is that there is a kind of lie being told, right?
The lie that in the habeas case, don't worry, habeas is this safeguard, so, people can... If they, if there's a real injustice, people can get out of prison. it really isn't true, it's there to sort of assuage people. I think that's maybe true with respect to the necessity defense. I think it's certainly true with respect to laws regulating the treatment of animals much more broadly, right?
That is, you know, we understand there are these animal cruelty laws. There are laws about animal welfare. They don't do nothing, but they do so little, and the effect
Mariann Sullivan: Oh, totally
Michael Dorf: a message that is very in much inconsistent with what is actually going on. So that's, that's sort of where I ended up and how I saw the through line.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. No, I, I like that, that prism to see, and it is a prism 'cause it distorts everything. nice one, Mariann. that the, a, a way of looking at it that, that it makes it impossible to clearly qualify for any of these things. If a judge wants to, if it's a very sympathetic case, the judge could always overlook one of the qualifications that are contradictory or whatever.
But it's, but there's always a way out. The, it, there's no clear legal right here. It's just maybe an opportunity. Yeah, that, that's very good. I like it. You made them all...
Michael Dorf: out of your last two podcasts, that's it.
Mariann Sullivan: You go first. No, you go first. all right. You, you also, th- this is the one that surprised me, since you've been thinking of nothing but SCOTUS, which I really don't understand how you li- are living through it, I really don't, 'cause, there've been a few bright spots. I seriously was thinking this morning, they put those cases in there, the bright spots, like the, birthright citizenship, knowing that they weren't going to reverse it, though some of them wanted to, so that it wouldn't look like they were just screwing, screwing, the Constitution in every way possible.
But anyway, I, I'm, I'm, th- that's not what you want to talk about. You do-
Michael Dorf: Sort of continuation of this theme, right? Of, you know, it looks like you're doing something, but it's actually not there. And in fact, you know, I, I'm, I'm writing up all sorts of commentary on the past term, one of which I'm gonna write for SCOTUSblog for Friday probably, which is the, know, one of the things that's happened in this last term and during, basically since Trump has been in power, is that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right, right, the, the air... what, what is sort of, debatable, that when they reject something that he does that out- that's completely outlandish, it makes them seem reasonable, that nobody even has thought that this was on the table before.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah.
Michael Dorf: so
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah
Michael Dorf: And that's a little bit like what we've just
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, totally.
Michael Dorf: what I wanted to talk about. What I want to talk about
Mariann Sullivan: They're, they're moving the Overton window i- totally in the wrong direction.
Michael Dorf: So, the, the
Mariann Sullivan: I just... Can I just clarify one thing? we do have some listeners from other countries, and I just want to say SCOTUS is what we call the Supreme Court of the United States, in case that wasn't clear.
Michael Dorf: yes, SCO-- and Chili is my dog in the background there. Well, he's one of my dogs. You can see him. Hi, Chili. so, I, I wouldn't name a dog SCOTUS. That would be cruel. No, that would be awful
So the, the thought I had, and it's really just really an elaborate way to get to segue into a discussion of something else.
But the thought I had was, was out of the birthright citizenship case mostly. and, and that is, you know, everybody agrees that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment's, citizenship clause was adopted for the primary purpose of reversing the Dred Scott decision, which said, that Black Americans could not be citizens, whether or not they were enslaved. and so the, you know, the Civil War ends. The 13th Amendment ends slavery. And so to ensure that, there is citizenship in the 14th Amendment, there's this first sentence, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are ci- and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the states wherein they reside." and, uh The, the language though that I've just described, right, doesn't say anything about, slaves. it's just about people being entitled to, if they're born here. and part of the back and forth between the majority and the dissent in the case is about the extent to which the provision takes on a life of its own because of its broad language.
So, the-- Yes, the inspiration for it, the reason why they put this language in the Constitution was to ensure citizenship for, people who were formerly enslaved, but the language goes, more broadly. So that sort of put me in mind a project I've been working on this summer as well, which I know you wanted to talk about a little bit as well, and that is a, a paper I'm writing for a symposium on the recent book, by, John Adenitire and Raffael Fossel on Animals and the Constitution. and by the Constitution, I think you ha-- you've had discussions of this, right? But, but just a reminder, by the Constitution, John and Raffael, who are based in the UK, don't mean any particular constitution. They mean, you know, constitutions, constitutional rights, more broadly, because a big piece of their argument, right?
They're, they're sort of move-- they wanna move towards sentience-based constitutionalism. But a big piece of their argument is that existing constitutional provisions, no doubt were inspired by things having nothing to do with the treatment of non-human animals, might nonetheless be leveraged and used to find rights for non-human animals.
and, you know, it's a, some sense, it's a very, very common move in the law, but it's also potentially, you know, quite, quite radical. So that, that was the, the connection there. and so I'm happy to talk about that piece of it or more broadly a little bit about, John and Raffael's book, which I know you featured in various ways, but because I had to
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I had them on to talk about it, yeah.
Michael Dorf: Remember the, the episode. and I, I had them in my, my seminar last, last year and, and at the law school. the, you know, but I, I did write, had to write this essay, and so I had to sort of grapple with that and might wanna talk a little bit about that.
Mariann Sullivan: No, I think that's a, I mean, it's a hugely important concept that, that, you- there, and there might have been a deliberate choice to use broad language. I mean, we shouldn't assume that they were just... I, I'm talking about the 14th Amendment, that they were just like, they didn't think, I mean, they wouldn't...
The only people who this will ever apply to would be former enslaved people. I
Michael Dorf: No one, in fact, during the...
Mariann Sullivan: they knew that it would be broader than that.
Michael Dorf: The opinions, they talk about the way in which, during the debates, during the Reconstruction Congress, people are talking about what will be the impact on Chinese immigration, which was, of course, that would grow more salient in the next couple of decades.
They talked about its impact on, Native Americans and, and others. So, so they are aware of it, even though the original impetus is, to, to deal with people who have, recently, been freed from slavery
Mariann Sullivan: You know, one thing it does make me think of, not, and I do wanna get to, John and Rafael's a li- a little bit about John and Rafael's book, but though, though I suggest people listen to the interview, to get more deeply into it. But it remi- like, cruelty laws. Cruelty laws are written so incredibly generally.
Like, unnecessary suffering. Nobody knows what it means 'cause it's written so broadly, and perhaps we should start thinking of that a little bit more about how... And it's interpreted bizarrely narrowly. Like, it was necessary to, I don't know, use horses for t- transport 150 years ago, so that, that must still apply.
It's necessary to make money, so that must still apply. It's, it's, it, w- when it's interpreted at all, it's interpreted basically to eliminate the meaning of the word necessary. Of course, New York, I should mention, uses the word unjustifiable, but it basically means the same thing. And, I think that that's another thing that needs a second look about h- how it should be more, more broadly inter- I mean, this is my whole life.
It's not just something I just thought of. It should, not should only be more broadly interpreted, but br- interpreted relevant to the current day. Things that were necessary then are not necessary anymore. We ha- we could be entering into a, a, a, a new age of our relationship with animals. We don't have to say what they did in the past was wrong.
We can say it or not say it. We don't have to. It's different. It, and if we look at that word necessary and interpret it in a modern light, it... Nothing that we do to them is necessary anymore. The world is very different.
Michael Dorf: Ago, I taught a, co-taught a seminar called, Rights and Animal Rights, and the, the idea was to look at how arguments go-- you make about one flow into the other and vice versa. And one of the things I would note about this idea is what you've just described is pretty much commonplace within the law generally.
So even people who consider themselves, you know, conservatives or, or originalists will acknowledge that application of a word can change even as its meaning is fixed. So there's a great decision by Justice Scalia from many years ago, in which, he's interpreting, what a, what it means to be, in a reasonable amount of time and, the-- how long, how long the police can hold somebody, Yeah
before they bring them before a judge. And what he says is, look, you know, the... I don't remember what the particular constitutional text was, something like unreasonable, right? So the, the, you know, what was reasonable in a time when, people, moved about on horseback or-- and they communicated, you know, over long distances by sending letters is different from what's reasonable today with, much speedier transportation and communication. And so a shorter period is all you get. And everyone thought that made perfect sense. What, what's notable to me is that so often in cases involving animals, that kind of common sense just goes out the window because of motivated reasoning, right? That is, the judges are afraid that, well, if I take this literally, it means, you know, that's the end of, animal agriculture and can't have that, right.
Mariann Sullivan: Proves too much.
Mariann: You interpret necessary correctly, like by its dictionary meaning, not like some alternative meaning, but just by its dictionary meaning, and everything would change. so in your article, which I had a chance to read, about the
Mariann Sullivan: book, y- there was a quote I pulled out, I told you at the time, that I particularly loved. Because you're talking about the conversation that they start in proposing this theme of, animal, a- sentien- sentient constitutionalism, I think it is, that we should extend some sort of constitutional recognition or rights to, all sentient beings.
And you talk about a, a, a number of reasons why this is unwieldy. Is that a fair word?
difficult, maybe not the right approach?
Michael Dorf: So the-- so first of all, I should say I really love the book. I think it's, deeply... It's,
Mariann Sullivan: No, it's an important book
Michael Dorf: and it's, it's very, very thorough, and it engages with real-world cases across multiple legal systems in various parts of the world, and also deeply with the, the, literature across various fields.
So it's, it's quite an accomplishment. and of course, I share the, you know, the ultimate goal of, John and Raffael, which is to, you know, inhabit a world in which, there is respect shown for the interests of all sentient beings. the, the questions that I raise are, I would say, either strategic or tactical, right?
oh, that's Kona, who's now entered the room. and, and he's leaving. so, the, question I raise is whether you need constitutionalism in order to, achieve, what we want for animals. And I, I have two sorts of concerns. So one is just kind of, practical about democracy, right? That is, this is a-- th-this is an argument about constitutional democracy. And, you know, we've all encountered a kind of skeptic when you say you're for animal rights. They say, "Well, should, you know, squirrels have the right to vote?" and, the answer to that, of course, is no. what John and Raffael say in response to that, with which I agree, is, but that doesn't mean their interests oughtn't to be considered.
And they talk about, ways of, you know, they, they have the idea of, having spokespeople for animal interests. So you could set aside in the legislature, number of seats for people who would be, sort of a g-a guardian of the in-interests of various animals, and they would speak for those animals. and so my criticism of that is not that I think it's a bad idea, but that I think that that's not really what we would call constitutional democracy, right? That is to say, you know, in a world in which we take all sentient beings' interests, into account, there are many, many more, non-human animals than there are humans. And if we are really going to, you know, a-a-and can you really call something a democracy where the vast majority of citizens, which is what they want to call the, the animals in this world, don't have a direct voice, the government. Now, I think democracy can and does function even when many people either don't vote or are incapable of exercising the franchise because they're very young children or because they have some severe intellectual disability. But nonetheless, the sort of, these are, people that and Raffael referred to as non-paradigmatic, humans. nonetheless, I think the system functions based on the assumption that the sort of average, person is a paradigmatic human, and it's a little odd when the sort of average, is, you know, someone who doesn't have literally their-- a, a voice in the democracy.
So that's, that's a kind of theoretical objection. I have a more practical objection, though, which is, about the distinction-- so, so that-- so, so, I, I should say, so I-- therefore, I, I think that we, we ought to think of, animals as at least moral patients. That is, beings who deserve our respect and whom we, we care about, but not necessarily as fully moral agents, beings with responsibilities, and fully capable of participating in the project of mutual self-governance. But again, that, that's mostly theoretical. I have a, a further practical worry, which is that, once you acknowledge a kind of constitutional obligation, it would seem that the resources of modern governments are going to be overly burdened, right? That is, countries, not the US, unfortunately, but many countries have, economic, social, and cultural rights. things like right to housing, right to, right to education, right to healthcare. not all animals would benefit from all of these, but I think all of them would benefit from some of those, like healthcare, for example. So in a world in which we are treating non-human animals as part of the political community, I think it would be unacceptable to say, you know, everybody at the age of 65 or older gets Medicare, but, only humans and no, no veterinary care for older animals or the sick or whatever it is. and that becomes prohibitively expensive. And I think that we kind of recognize that as vegans, right? We think that, you know, the, the baseline obligation is non-harm.
Mariann Sullivan: Alright
Michael Dorf: to do things. It would be good to do things to help, but we don't spend every last dime we have, helping. This is, you know, you, you see some of this discussed in the altruism literature, but, but generally, it's, think it's permissible to draw a distinction between to whom we owe an obligation of non-harm and those to whom we think we owe an obligation or we want to provide benefits for. And I think that including non-human animals within a sort of constitutional scheme makes that too demanding and therefore you're going to end up with a kind of very con-- You know, either you don't get it or you have a very constrained libertarian government that does almost nothing for anybody.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, no, I, I tend to agree with all of that. And also that I don't know how we make this happen. I mean, they do talk about incremental change, but it's hard to imagine getting from here to there.
Michael Dorf: So, so one of the points I, I, I make, I, is that, in a world in which what they want for the Constitution is politically possible, you probably don't need it. is to say you would have people who are, care enough about animals not to harm them and to do things that are in their interest, even if not giving them, you know, exactly the same right to health insurance as every human.
Mariann Sullivan: So speaking of moral patience, which is such an annoying word, like just makes me think of them sitting in the hospital. But, but that's not how we're using it.
Michael Dorf: I didn't come up with it
Mariann Sullivan: if we enforced... I, I know, I know it's a term, it's a term. if, if we enforce cruelty laws literally and in this day and age, would that, would that kind of achieve that?
Or is the law already on the books that would achieve this, it's just not interpreted? And why is it not interpreted?
Michael Dorf: If the this is, prevent-- you know, stopping animal agriculture, I think the answer is yes. Stopping a lot of use of animals in other wa-ways, yes. If it's full equality in the sense of equal right to having government not just abstain from doing harm, but to provide benefits, then I think the answer is no.
Mariann Sullivan: No, I, I'm, I mean, like just, our, that's how I was interpreting moral patients, that creatures who we, we, we respect and who have dignity but we don't have to affirmatively aid them.
Michael Dorf: I think that-- So this is terminological, but I think the distinction between moral patients and moral agents is more about what they can do and less about the distinction between positive and negative rights in that terms. yes, to, to, the, to-- With respect to the question I think you're, you're really asking, right, which is,
you know, what
would-- what could we achieve if we
took the
laws and, you know, applied them according to the actual meaning of the words rather than, you know, in ways that just try to preserve the status quo? Yeah, sure. I mean, by any definition of cr-- You just, you know, you just think about what is done to animals, and you ask if that were done to a human, would we regard that as cruelty? And the answer is almost always obviously yes.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. And, and just i- is that in any legitimate sense of the word necessary? Are, are you, are you familiar with the Oregon Ballot Initiative?
Michael Dorf: Remind me. This is the,
Mariann Sullivan: Very interesting.
Michael Dorf: is the
Mariann Sullivan: They-- This is the
Michael Dorf: that would, would radically change, like w- basically
Mariann Sullivan: has an inter-
Michael Dorf: a- animal agriculture, but that's not what they're
Mariann Sullivan: it, yes, it has an interesting cruelty law in that it doesn't have an exception for anything necessary or justifiable. It has spelled out exceptions for, like, agriculture and, and, I don't know, hunting and fishing and all sorts of things. But it does not have this... And it, it's a, it's a fairly modern law and seen as one of the best laws because it does spell things out, because the problem with the ones that don't spell things out is that they get interpreted to mean absolutely nothing.
And so, yeah, the, the Oregon, IP 28 it's called, it's been on the ballot a number... Well, it hasn't been on the ballot. There have been signature gathering, efforts for several years. This year it looks like they're gonna make it onto the ballot, and I'll tell you, there're a lot of people out there in the industry who are like, "What the hell?"
Interesting that they're that upset 'cause it, it's not like anybody thinks it's gonna pass. So, maybe they do.
Michael Dorf: Yeah, you
Mariann Sullivan: It certainly
Michael Dorf: mean
Mariann Sullivan: gives an opportunity to start a conversation
Michael Dorf: Well, the other thing, right, I-- as part of the research for this paper I wrote on, John and Raffael's book, you know, I, I looked into some of the research on public opinions, and you get these astounding results like, you know, should animals have the same rights as humans?
And, you know, like a third of the respondents say yes. and then you think th-but,
Mariann Sullivan: I think it was higher than a
Michael Dorf: it,
Mariann Sullivan: third.
Michael Dorf: But it's in-- Right? It's incredible.
Mariann Sullivan: Totally.
Michael Dorf: These are people who are, you know, they're eating meat, and they're wearing leather. There's like, like, what, what? And so it's poss-- You could imagine voters in Oregon, like, reading this and thinking like, "Yeah, that seems right," even though, you know, it's completely contradictory to the way they're living. and then, you know, there would be, of course, the risk that it gets interpreted away.
Mariann Sullivan: The, it, what's also interesting is that people looking at it, they wouldn't ha- th- they wouldn't have to really confront this contradiction 'cause it's not a sales ban. I mean, you can bring all the steak from Idaho into O- O- into Oregon and, and, and sell it. so that really closes down people's minds when they think, "Oh, I would have to go vegan."
No, you don't have to go vegan. You just have to say, "In Oregon, we don't do this to animals." I
think it's fascinating.
Michael Dorf: I mean, it, it is a little weird to me that someone would s-- Like, like I, I get that a lot of people are just not thinking about it. But, you know, I feel this way about some of the bans on local activities, right? I understand why someone who doesn't... You know, if you don't wear, I'm thinking about the, some of the slaughterhouse case.
Like if you don't-- you're not eating horse meat, it's perfectly sensible that you don't, you also don't want there to be a, slaughterhouse for horses in your neighborhood. but you know, if you are eating or wearing or whatever it is, and yet you nonetheless vote for the thing to ban it from your area, not because you think it has like, you know, it's not a so-called LULU, locally undesirable land use, or it doesn't have like polluting effect, but because you're, you know, you have a moral objection. I don't quite understand the mindset that says, "I'm mor-- I have a moral objection to this being nearby, but not to, using the products of the exact same kind of facility if it's being shipped in." But apparently there are people who think that way.
Mariann Sullivan: I think there are a lot of people who think that way.
Michael Dorf: Yeah.
Mariann Sullivan: I th- I mean, I can't explain it either, but I think that we're all familiar with the fact that people kind of think that way. They just want to be completely deceived about what's actually happening to animals.
Michael Dorf: Yeah. So maybe this, doubles back to where we started, right? Where you've got these, you know, the, the-- when you've got the law that looks like it provides a path, but it actually cuts off all the pathways because they're contradictory, and that's to tell people a lie. Well, it might be it's a lie that people wanna hear.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, totally. Easy way out. All right, well, since we've gone back to the beginning, I guess I should let you go. I know that you have really a lot to do.
Michael Dorf: What's going on with you, Mariann. We talked all about me.
Mariann Sullivan: Me? Nothing's ever going on with me. I just sit here. The woman next door, who's very elderly, asked me the other day, "What is it that you do at your dining room table?"
I guess she looks into my windows and sees me sitting here. So that's what I do. I talk to all of you.
Michael Dorf: Yeah. Well, I, I will say that there was one piece of, Central and Western New York news that I found very sad, recently, which is that Strong Hearts is closing.
Mariann Sullivan: Oh, it's a tragedy. Tragedy.
Michael Dorf: Which I realized it opened when, I moved to Ithaca. It opened in 2008, which is when I, I came here. So I, I hadn't realized at the time that it was brand new, you know, for me, the, the Buffalo location didn't... only existed for a few years, but the Syracuse...
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I've never been to the Buffalo location. This obviously, for you out there, we're talking about a restaurant, which actually two restaurants, very beloved among, Western New York vegan scene. Unbelievably good food. Not health food by any means, but really, really well done, and totally, completely animal rights.
Michael Dorf: No, I, I've, I've talked to one of the owners on several occasions, and yeah, Joel was, you know, very committed, and I, I know that they really, if they could keep it going, they would. So, it's a, it's unfortunate development, for us.
Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. On that sad note.
Michael Dorf: Yeah. well, I would give some happy news or something, but, if I could
Mariann Sullivan: Happy news. let's see. well, you've been, you've been thinking about SCOTUS, so, that's really not a good avenue to go down. It could be worse. It could.
Michael Dorf: Right.
Mariann Sullivan: Except like I said, I think they put those cases... The cases that they didn't, screw up, I think they put them in there so it would look more even.
Michael Dorf: Maybe.
Mariann Sullivan: Oh, what a world, what a world
Michael Dorf: Alright. Well, hope we haven't depressed people too much.
Mariann Sullivan: No, I think that you were not depressing until you got to the very end, so that's good. I do have a few announcements for people if you wanna,
Michael Dorf: I'll, s-
Mariann Sullivan: Do you need to jump off or All right, one is I, I think that probably most of you have been following the Save Our Bacon Act, which is the act, in, in Congress that would eliminate a state's ability to, do things like Prop- Prop 12 in, in California, which, you know, is...
it puts in minor but important reforms for farmed animals. Enormous amounts of work has gone into, into making these things happen. And, so I have said before that it looks pretty good because it passed in the House, in the House Farm Bill. It's been taken out of the Senate Farm Bill, but that is not the end.
It can always be put back, either by the Senate or in the conference committee. So the effort continues, 'cause this would be seriously a pretty big disaster. So there's an... there's a lobbying effort run by the Humane League on Wednesday, July 8th. It's online. And they're partnering with a bunch of other groups, that are Animal Policy Alliance members, some of which you've heard on the podcast, and they're gonna do a training, and it's, this is really good.
It's really good for this, and also just in general, I like that they're doing this. They're really helping people learn how to do this. So they, they will arrange it... You do the training, and they try... You know, they, they have people, a professional lobbyist who will, who will explain, like, how to handle it.
Then they set up a meeting with your senator, and they join you on the meeting with your senator, so that there'll be one constituent and one, one pro. And, I did notice, too, that there was a rally planned in New York City, in, in front of Senator Schumer's, office to get him to oppose the Save Our Bacon Act, and as soon as he heard about it, he opposed the Save Our Bacon Act.
I mean, we have to get louder, but he just, he just hadn't heard about it, and, you know, as soon as they knew people were protesting, he was like, "Oh, yeah, I'm against that." So, this is... I think this is a great idea. their goal is to train and prepare 150-plus grassroots lobbyists for 20 meetings with senators, at least 20 meetings with senators.
And, and they've so far they've, they've had, 40, with 40 lobbyists meet with 12 senators. I, I think this is great. It's also... It's not just for this bill. It's building this network of grassroots lobbyists, and I h- I love that people don't have to do it on themselves, 'cause, you know, I'm shy, and I'm sure other people are, too.
All right. Another, another announcement is from Jordi Casamitjana, who was on the podcast, pretty recently, just a couple months ago. He's an independent researcher and author and passionate, passionate vegan, and he is conducting what he is calling the Huge Vegan Survey, and he wants to get as many vegans as he can to respond, and he's looking at issues like what attracted people to veganism, what makes people stay vegan for longer- the whole, all questions about how they transitioned and, and, and just trying to, to use this information to design better strategies.
And he's got 7,000 responses so far, but he wants a lot more. Jordi is a very committed person. He's very, he's very, very persuasive. So it's all online, free, and completely anonymous, and we will put that link in the show notes. And, that's what I have for announcements.
As for us, this'll come out on Thursday, so I guess it's Thursday if you're listening to this, or later, and our next interview is gonna be really great with the authors of this book, Reynard the House Wolf, but it's about so much more than that.
Tom Grotewold and Sol Anzorena, and they are amazing, amazing activists from the upper peninsula of Michigan who just kind of got mad at this copper mine and, like, you, you just can't believe what they've accomplished. And, all right. So that'll be the interview. Bonus for Flock members comes out on Monday.
Don't forget we're a podcast. We're on YouTube. Subscribe, hit Like wherever you listen, and I'll see you next time with Jasmin. Thank you, Michael.
Michael Dorf: My pleasure, thank you.
_____________________________________________
Thank you for listening to the Our Hen House podcast! If you enjoy our podcasts, believe in our mission to effectively mainstream the movement to end the exploitation of animals, find community and solace in our shows and resources, and would like to show your support for vegan indie media, please make a donation today.
Contributions of any amount will go towards our fundraising goal and are hugely appreciated. Our Hen House is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, so it’s tax-deductible. Thank you for helping us create quality content!
Subscribe to our show on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or your favorite podcatcher, and don’t forget to leave a 5-star review!
Check out Our Hen House’s other podcasts: The Animal Law Podcast, The Teaching Jasmin How to Cook Vegan Podcast, and the Antiracism in Animal Advocacy Audio Series.
Follow us on social media! You can find Our Hen House on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or Bluesky.
The Our Hen House theme song is written and performed by Michael Harren.