PETA Launches Historic Constitutional Lawsuit for Owls Tortured in Lab

Published by Zachary Toliver.

Thirty barn owls—extremely smart, empathetic animals who use tools and care for their young—are being held captive in a Johns Hopkins University laboratory run by Shreesh Mysore. They will be tortured in invasive brain experiments and killed because of a congressionally mandated death sentence, which PETA is arguing in federal court is unconstitutional.

This owl is one of many imprisoned in Shreesh Mysore’s basement laboratory, where he cuts into their skulls and screws metal devices onto their heads in curiosity-driven experiments that have no relevance for human health.

This death sentence is the 2002 Helms Amendment, which deprived birds, mice, and rats of the protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) simply because of their species. In the U.S., these species constitute 99% of all animals used in laboratories, which means that tens of millions of animals are not protected by the AWA during cruel and deadly experiments.

In a groundbreaking case for animal rights, PETAalong with a current JHU student, a former Maryland secretary of health, and animal welfare activist and actor Evanna Lynchis suing the federal government as “next friend” to the plaintiffs (in this case, these owls) because the Constitution is clear: Congress can’t inflict punishment on anyone in legislation. That includes inanimate corporations—so it must also include living, breathing animals.

How Can JHU Mutilate and Kill Owls Under the Constitution?

Experimenters at JHU cut open owls’ skulls and implant electrodes in their brains, lock them in restraint devices, and then bombard them with noises and lights to observe their reactions. After experimenters mutilate these birds’ brain tissue, they will ultimately kill all the plaintiffs.

Experimenters can subject owls to torment and kill them in large part because of an amendment to the AWA drafted by notorious civil rights foe Sen. Jesse Helms. The Helms Amendment excludes “birds, rats … and mice … bred for use in research, from coverage under the AWA.” That the goal of the Helms Amendment is unconstitutional punishment directed toward a particular group—in this case, birds bred for use in “research”—was reinforced by Helms himself in a cruel, sarcastic floor speech in which he implored his fellow senators to “deliver a richly deserved rebuke” to the “so-called animal rights crowd” while comparing birds, rats, and mice bred for research—a group that includes the plaintiffs—to “food for reptiles” who merit “extermination.”

This amendment stripped the secretary of agriculture of the ability to issue or enforce standards, rules, regulations, and other requirements for the humane treatment of these animals.

Why Is This a Violation of Owls’ Constitutional Rights?

The constitution is clear—Congress can’t pass any death sentences or other punishments. That means: Not against you or me, not against groups of people or political organizations, not against corporations, and not against animals.

The legislative death sentence—the “bill of attainder”—was a favorite weapon of bloodthirsty English kings. Because of this infamous history, the Constitution’s framers chose unanimously and without debate to ban all bills of attainder. So by the plain text of the Constitution, these owls have just as many protections against these laws as anyone else.

Why Should We Respect the Constitutional Rights of Owls?

According to the experimenter’s own public statement, “Animals are capable of complex behaviors and cognitive functions.” Like all animals, owls are individuals with distinct personalities. They live in communities built on complex social relationships. Owls mate for life, help each other raise their young, and, from a very young age, demonstrate a willingness to forgo food in behalf of their hungrier peers.

Barn Owls and other animals who mate for life© iStock.com/John Carnemolla

Owls experience joy and can suffer, just like humans. Like all species, they share an innate desire to live free from harm.

How can our nation protect inanimate corporations from harm but deny protection to complex, sentient beings?

What Happens if PETA Wins This Lawsuit?

The goal of this litigation is to have the Helms Amendment abolished so that the federal government can do its job under the AWA. Currently, the amendment functions as a death sentence for tens of millions of animals every single year.

A legal victory could mean that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be ordered to issue rules that require the humane treatment of birds used in laboratories and conduct rigorous inspections to ensure adherence to those standards. Experiments such as these—and many others involving birds, mice, and rats—that treat animals’ lives and interests as disposable cannot satisfy any rigorous definition of humane treatment.

Tell JHU to End This Torment Now

PETA has engaged in years of painstaking efforts to rescue these owls because they’re used in some of the most gruesome, worthless experiments inflicted on animals today.

Owl vision and hearing are not even remotely comparable to those of humans. Owls use different parts of their brains from humans to process stimuli. The stress of experimental torture further interferes with their brain processes.

These experiments aren’t about helping humans—they’re about keeping taxpayer-funded grant money flowing into the university.

Join hundreds of thousands of supporters in urging Johns Hopkins to stop these cruel and useless experiments on owls on its campus, release the animals to a reputable sanctuary, and embrace modern, animal-free research methods that offer human patients real hope for cures and treatments.

Get PETA Updates

Stay up to date on the latest vegan trends and get breaking animal rights news delivered straight to your inbox!

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us.

 Ingrid E. Newkirk

“Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?” READ MORE

— Ingrid E. Newkirk, PETA President and co-author of Animalkind