The Animal Cruelty Enforcement (ACE) Act: How Helping Animals Helps Us All
Scholars from the Network are being deployed and actively writing letters to the chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary committees to share their expertise and substantiate the importance of passing the Animal Cruelty Enforcement (ACE) Act, H.R. 1477, which would establish an animal cruelty prosecutors’ unit with the U.S. Department of Justice to allow for more robust enforcement of our federal anti-cruelty laws.
So far, 10 scholars spanning psychology, philosophy, sociology, forensic science and bioethics have written letters to committee leadership, each contributing evidence-based arguments for legislative action on this front. This is the Network’s model put into action, where scholarship and expertise are put into service for concrete policy prescriptions.
In their letters, our scholars have translated decades of clinical, forensic, and sociological research into a single, shared argument: that closing this enforcement gap protects both animals and the people around them:
Dr. Virginia M. Maxwell, professor of forensic science at the University of New Haven and an expert in the field of animal cruelty investigations, calls the legislation imperative. “Over a 30-year career in forensic science, both in practice and academia, I have seen how cruelty to animals is rarely an isolated issue,” she asserts. “It often coexists with other criminal and violent behavior.”
Dr. Todd K. Shackelford, chair of the Department of Psychology at Oakland University and author of nearly 400 studies on cruelty and violence, adds decades of forensic weight to the record, noting that cruelty toward animals “rarely occurs in isolation—it tends to accompany other criminal and violent conduct.” Dr. Shackelford also proved a rapid-response asset for the Network, providing expert commentary for a press release on a federal monkey torture trafficking case in which he noted the well-documented link between animal cruelty and violence against intimate partners.
Dr. Megan Rave Lankenau, a Washington D.C.-based clinical psychologist who treats trauma survivors, brings a frontline view: “It is essential to recognize that animal cruelty leads to increased violence and cruelty. It is not something to be minimized; rather, it can be considered a warning sign that an individual is more likely to commit additional acts of violence. If that warning is heeded, law enforcement can intervene and prevent further aggression, thereby decreasing and breaking the cycle and contagion of violence.”
Dr. Bob Fischer, professor of philosophy at Texas State University and director of the Center for Policy and Animal Welfare, points to the scholarly literature: “The empirical literature on the relationship between animal cruelty and human violence is now substantial. A nationally representative study of over 43,000 U.S. adults found that cruelty to animals was significantly associated with a range of anti-social behaviors.” He further states that “the legislation would allow federal enforcement to function at the level appropriate to the problem at hand.”
Dr. Kimberly Spanjol, a criminologist with 35 years of experience at the intersection of animal protection, behavioral science and criminal justice, including work with the NYPD Animal Cruelty Investigation Squad and a co-authored typology of dogfighting behaviors for law enforcement, points to the organized crime dimension of the problem: “Animal cruelty does not occur only in domestic or isolated settings. It is deeply embedded in organized criminal networks including dogfighting operations, wildlife trafficking, illegal gambling, and enterprises that frequently intersect with drug trafficking, weapons offenses, money laundering, and human exploitation.” Without dedicated federal infrastructure, “investigators pursuing animal cruelty cases are overwhelmed, under-resourced, and frequently unable to follow the criminal networks that these cases connect to,” she writes.
Dr. James A. Marcum, professor of philosophy at Baylor University, argues the payoff extends to society at large: “The importance of this legislation extends beyond protecting animals. It reflects a broader commitment to public safety, ethical responsibility, and the recognition that violence is interconnected across species and social systems.”
Dr. Harold Takooshian, professor emeritus of psychology at Fordham University, points to decades of behavioral research linking animal cruelty to domestic violence, child abuse and other violent offenses: “Stronger enforcement would also address broader patterns of criminal behavior.”
Dr. Suzanne E. Tallichet, professor of sociology, social work and criminology at Morehead State University, whose research on the link spans two decades, writes that “it is now commonly understood by academics, social workers, psychologists, law enforcement and the public that animal abuse has tremendous predictive value for acts of human violence and related crimes that threaten the safety of citizens and their communities.”
Dr. Jessica Pierce, a bioethicist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, frames the stakes institutionally, writing that “animal cruelty is not an isolated moral wrong but part of a broader pattern of violence that merits serious legal and institutional attention.”
Dr. Gretchen M. Reevy, lecturer emerita of psychology at California State University, East Bay, highlights that the youngest victims, the children who witness animal cruelty suffer “psychological trauma, emotional desensitization, and increased aggressive behavior.”
All of the scholars from multiple academic disciplines have reached the same conclusion: H.R. 1477 would deliver a practical, measurable win for animals and society at large. The Network is translating our scholars’ wellspring of expertise into informed advocacy to get the act passed. We continue to build our scholar support base for the bill.
The ACE Act of 2025 was reintroduced in the 119th Congress on Feb. 21, 2025, by a bipartisan group of lawmakers: U.S. Reps. David Joyce, R-Ohio, Joe Neguse, D-Colo., Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. The bill seeks to establish an Animal Cruelty Crimes sectionwithin the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division. The new section would focus on enforcing existing federal animal cruelty laws by providing dedicated staff and resources to investigate and prosecute violations.
While federal animal cruelty laws do exist, Congress found that “the lack of a dedicated animal crimes enforcement unit within the Department of Justice has resulted in unacceptable delays in prosecutions, and an overall lack of prosecution of animal crimes.” The ACE Act would also strengthen coordination between local law enforcement and federal agencies to better implement existing laws.
Since 2014, DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) has had responsibility to criminally enforce the following five statutes. Based on limited publicly available data, here is their track record on enforcement of these statutes over those 12 years:
Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1821): ZERO cases.
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. § 1902): ZERO cases.
Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 2132-2149): ONE charge.
Animal Fighting (7 U.S.C. § 2156): THREE cockfighting cases; a larger number of dogfighting cases.
Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (18 U.S.C. § 48): Data is limited; this is a newer statute.
This paltry number of cases initiated and prosecuted by ENRD amounts to an astonishing failure of enforcement by the DOJ. The conclusion is inescapable: there is insufficient energy and capacity to enforce these important laws enacted by Congress and demanded by the American people.
A central rationale for the ACE Act is the empirically documented relationship between animal cruelty and broader public safety concerns. “There is a significant connection between animal cruelty and violence against humans, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, homicide, gang activity, drug trafficking and other crimes,” Congress states in one of the bill’s findings. The proposed legislation aims to close the enforcement gap between existing federal laws and actual prosecution to benefit animals and simultaneously society at large.
The U.S. House Commerce, Justice and Science (CSJ) appropriations subcommittee has included report language in the Fiscal Year 2027 spending bill to direct the U.S. Department of Justice to create this new section. Animal Wellness Action is seeking to have the Senate CJS subcommittee replicate that language and see that it’s included in the end-of-year spending bill to create the section.
The effort to create the Animal Cruelty section at the DOJ has massive support, with more than 600 endorsing agencies and organizations, including the National Sheriffs’ Association and state sheriffs’ associations across the nation, including those from Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. The Major County Sheriffs of America has backed the bipartisan push to boost federal capacity for more prosecutors to bring more animal cruelty cases, as have state district attorneys’ associations around the country.
Opportunities for engagement
We are seeking expert letters from scholars in relevant fields, including psychology, sociology, criminology and related disciplines, that speak to the scientific evidence connecting animal cruelty and violence towards humans. We especially welcome letters drawing on your own personal research, and expressing support for the passage of the Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act in both chambers of Congress. If you or a colleague would like to contribute, please email sfeigin@centerforahumaneeconomy.org