The Federal Lawsuits That Could Shatter America’s No-Kill Dogma
Three cases expose how America's most powerful animal welfare alliance turned lifesaving into a numbers game—with deadly consequences.
A Quiet Rebellion in Federal Court
In San Antonio, Detroit, and Pharr, Texas, three families have filed federal lawsuits exposing the fatal cost of sheltering policies once praised as revolutionary.
These are not routine civil claims. Filed in U.S. District Courts, these cases allege violations of federal civil rights, government negligence, and failures of due process. They do not merely assign blame for individual tragedies—they seek to hold public agencies and their private influencers accountable for systemic, nationwide failures. If successful, these lawsuits could establish precedent that reshapes how shelters across America operate, fund, and justify their policies.
Taken together, they signal more than local outrage. They may mark the beginning of the end for one of the most influential forces in American sheltering: the Consortium1.
Comprised of Best Friends Animal Society, Maddie’s Fund, the ASPCA, PetSmart Charities, Petco Love, and others, the Consortium has reshaped sheltering norms through a singular focus: achieving 90–95% "live release" rates. This metric, often treated as the ultimate sign of success, now finds itself at the center of a growing legal and ethical crisis.
Say Their Names: Three Lawsuits That Could Break the Model
1. Detroit – The Phillips Case
In January 2024, Harold Phillips was killed by three pit bulls with documented aggression histories. Despite multiple complaints, Detroit Animal Care and Control left the dogs in the community. A wrongful death suit filed by Phillips’ widow names Friends of Detroit Animal Care and Control and Best Friends Animal Society, alleging their policies shaped the city’s fatal inaction.
2. San Antonio – The Najera Lawsuit
In February 2023, 81-year-old Ramon Najera was fatally attacked by two pit bulls with a history of aggression. Though the dogs had been impounded, they were returned to their owners. A federal lawsuit by Najera's family names the City of San Antonio. Local media and an internal memo revealed that Kristen Hassen, a consultant funded by Petco Love, promoted policy shifts at the shelter prioritizing live-release metrics over enforcement. Hassen is a key figure in the Consortium-backed Human Animal Support Services (HASS) initiative.
3. Pharr, Texas – The Manteca Suit
In January 2023, 91-year-old Estela Manteca was killed by dogs (breed not disclosed) that the city had previously labeled “vicious.” Her family's $100 million federal lawsuit claims city officials ignored their own enforcement orders in favor of preserving no-kill statistics. Though no national groups are named, the case mirrors systemic issues linked to Consortium influence.
Why This Isn’t Just Local Failure
These are not isolated lapses. They represent a growing judicial indictment of a sheltering model that prioritizes performance optics over prevention and public safety.
Over the past decade, Consortium-backed strategies have shifted sheltering away from upstream solutions—spay/neuter, humane education, enforcement—toward downstream practices designed to boost statistics. Shelters are incentivized to reduce intakes, fast-track adoptions, and suppress internal documentation of dangerous behaviors.
Staff report being discouraged from logging bite histories. Strays are rebranded as “community animals.” Intake becomes a liability, not a duty of care.
If the courts rule in favor of any of these families, it could establish precedent that makes it legally risky for shelters to:
Deprioritize enforcement of dangerous dog laws
Use euphemisms like “community animal” to avoid intake
Conceal bite history during transfers or adoptions
Suppress whistleblower concerns from staff
For years, critics raised alarms and were systematically dismissed. Now, those concerns are allegations under oath—and judges may soon weigh in.
The Quiet Collapse of the No-Kill Facade
This is not an attack on no-kill ideals. It is a judgment of its commodified distortion. The no-kill movement’s origin was never about performance quotas. Its roots lie in prevention, spay/neuter, and building public trust. What now stands on trial is not that vision—but a version reengineered for optics and fundraising.
The Consortium’s model, led most aggressively by Best Friends, codified one benchmark as the industry standard: a 90%+ live-release rate. This number drives grant funding, social media narratives, and donor appeals. But in chasing it, many shelters have:
Refused strays by calling them “community pets”
Transferred dogs without disclosing bite histories
Suppressed behavioral records to expedite placement
Shifted resources from prevention to marketing and transport
The result: a brittle infrastructure, built to project success rather than reduce suffering.
If any of the lawsuits succeed, the fallout could be immense. Cities may break with Consortium doctrine. Funders may reallocate support. States may outlaw high-risk policies.
The issue on trial is not compassion. It's the machinery that monetized it.
The Culture of Suppression
Beyond flawed policies lies an authoritarian culture. Critics describe an environment that punishes dissent and buries risk.
Multiple requests for comment to Best Friends CEO Julie Castle and consultant Kristen Hassen have gone unanswered. As lawsuits mount and scrutiny intensifies, their silence speaks volumes.
Whistleblowers recount being told not to log aggression. Dogs labeled as "high energy" or "under-socialized" were, in reality, dangerous. Transparency gave way to euphemism. Internal tracking systems like the Shelter Pet Data Alliance,—owned by Best Friends—omit key data: pre-admission euthanasia, deferred intakes, out-of-state transfers. Behind the dashboards is curation, not candor.
Animal Politics has documented this trend in previous investigations, including:
San Diego Humane Society’s Empire of Influence, Absence of Accountability
An Open Letter to Dr. Mark Stetter, Dean of UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine
When harm occurs, leadership retreats. The mission is no longer public safety. It’s organizational self-preservation.
An Organized Silence
On June 24, a formal request for comment was sent to Best Friends Animal Society regarding its named inclusion in the Detroit wrongful death lawsuit. The response, routed through BFAS’ Senior PR counsel, declined participation and offered no answers regarding the organization’s policies, public safety responsibilities, or its role in shaping the practices under legal scrutiny.
This silence—though unsurprising—reflects a broader strategy: engage only when narrative control is assured. Substantive accountability is avoided, while access is granted to sympathetic channels. It is now imperative that national media, public officials, and those influenced by BFAS policy and funding begin asking the questions it refuses to answer.
Why You Haven’t Heard About This
Despite the stakes, most professionals in the field are unaware of these lawsuits. That’s no accident.
For over a decade, the Consortium has engineered a media environment that elevates its vision and silences dissent. With celebrity endorsements, corporate allies, and sympathetic media, Best Friends projects dominance. Critics are painted as anti-animal. Concerns about safety or transparency are dismissed as fearmongering.
But federal courtrooms don’t answer to curated dashboards. If judges determine that Consortium-backed policies led to a human death or civil rights violations, the moment of accountability, obfuscated by branding, may finally begin.
A Legal Turning Point—But Not a Foregone Conclusion
Whether these lawsuits result in sweeping change remains uncertain. Court victories are never guaranteed, and even a decisive ruling may not dismantle the powerful network behind today's sheltering model. Yet this moment marks the first time that the legal system—not conferences, coalitions, or campaigns—is being asked to weigh in on the human and animal cost of metrics-first sheltering. However these cases unfold, they have already pierced the protective narrative, forcing a long-overdue indictment of the policies and power structures that have dominated animal welfare for over a decade.
What Must Happen Now
This is not a call to abandon no-kill. It’s a call to rescue it.
We must return to upstream strategies: spay/neuter, transparency, enforcement, ethical intake. We must choose truth over optics, prevention over PR, and public safety alongside compassion.
The age of unchallenged no-kill dogma is cracking. What follows must be more honest, more humane—and more accountable. Because when animal welfare becomes a numbers game, both animals and people lose.
Editor’s Note:
Best Friends Animal Society declined to comment for this story. Their refusal highlights the need for broader media scrutiny. We encourage national journalists and animal welfare reporters to request statements from BFAS and other Consortium members regarding the Detroit, San Antonio, and Pharr lawsuits. These cases deserve public attention—and institutional accountability.
For further press inquiries, Best Friends PR contact: Eric Rayvid (ericr@bestfriends.org)
What is the Consortium?
The Consortium refers to an influential network of national organizations that shape sheltering policy through funding, consulting, and advocacy. Members include:
Maddie’s Fund
Koret Shelter Medicine Program (KSMP)
Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) / Shelter Pet Data Alliance (SPDA)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
PetSmart Charities
Petco Love Foundation
National Animal Control Association (NACA)
Human Animal Support Services (HASS)
Outcomes Consulting
Team Shelter USA
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Stay Informed
For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
It would be nice if "The Federal Lawsuits That Could Shatter America’s No-Kill Dogma" really do, but reality is that animal care & control agencies taking bad advice from the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, et al have for many years now been routinely losing multi-million-dollar lawsuits for rehoming pit bulls & other dangerous dogs who kill people, for not euthanizing dogs with considerable bite history, & for not impounding dogs with bite history left to run at large. Among landmark examples, Los Angeles County Animal Care & Control in 2019 paid $1.1 million to survivors of Pamela Devitt, for failing to impound four pit bulls who routinely ran at large. Finding Los Angeles Animal Services guilty of gross negligence, a Los Angeles jury on May 31, 2023 awarded $6.8 million to German shepherd mix attack victim and former shelter volunteer Kelly Kaneko, 36. The Montgomery County, Ohio board of commissioners in March 2020 approved a $3.5 million settlement with survivors of Klonda Richey, 57. Richey was on February 7, 2014 fatally mauled by her next door neighbors’ two dogs, variously identified in court documents as “large-breed pit bulls, mastiffs, or Cane Corsos,” whom Montgomery County Animal Services had repeatedly failed to impound. Multi-million-dollar liability verdicts alone are clearly not enough to effect the reforms that are urgently needed, short of a RICO case that could bring to justice the national organizations passing out dangerously bad advice, as well as the local agencies whose directors are stupid enough to take it. Criminal convictions that actually send people to prison for rehoming dangerous dogs might also help. There have now been quite a few dog attack fatalities & disfigurements involving rehomed pit bulls in particular that would have sent people to prison if a gun rather than a dog had been sold to the owners––and a gun at least does not fire itself if kept in an unsafe manner.
Indeed, with such excellent reporting and the policies of BF and consortium obviously disastrous. for shelters and communities, it seems the facade is collapsing.
A small local rescue registers for Hassen (BF doctrines advocate), BF et al newsletters and seminars for monitoring and forwarded to me. A topic Hassen promotes is the "Big Dog Superhighway" as shelters, and communities nationwide are swamped with big dogs that are difficult to adopt for a variety of reasons including affordability and needing space. Apparently BF main legislative accomplishment is prohibiting landlord breed restrictions.
Hassen emphasizes improved marketing as solution and alarmingly advocates deceptive descriptions of large dogs with behavioral history.
Such as: dogs that react negatively to men, instead suggest "must be introduced" to men. From experience, many abused dogs never recover trust no matter how well subsequently treated and thus can be easily triggered. Our local shelter with previous Best Friends director marketed "unicorn" dogs---mostly pit bulls prone to killing other animals and had to be the only animal in the house--a very fraught long term situation.
Maddies Fund, BFAS, et al, have deliberately deprioritized/defunded population prevention because their business model is overpopulation and shelter overcapacity for merchandising, monetizing services and enormously lucrative proprietary software database mining. Distressed homeless pets are fundraising gold and transports where animals are disappeared into undisclosed locations and outcomes is the new fundraising gold rush.
They have installed this agenda in our local municipal shelter thru grants that direct the exclusive priority to adoptions with an unnecessary satellite adoption center that must then be staffed and maintained vs the numerous no overhead adoption events citywide for great exposure for adoptable animals.
That same grant money used for s/n/clinic outreach in outlying source areas of most litters, strays, distemper etc could reduce intake perhaps as quickly as one breeding season.