Professor Cupp has been quoted in hundreds of publications. some of which are provided below.
Washington Post, Karen Bruilliard, Seeking justice for Justice the horse. Can a neglected animal sue?, August 13, 2018
The article extensively discusses Cupp’s views regarding a case in Oregon where an animal rights group is seeking legal standing for a horse in a tort lawsuit as a victim of criminal neglect. The article states: “Some animal law experts warn that Justice’s lawsuit is extreme, even dangerous. Richard L. Cupp, a Pepperdine University law professor who has been critical of the chimpanzee personhood cases, said he thinks the horse case has even more radical implications.
Allowing Justice to sue could mean any animal protected under Oregon’s anti-cruelty statute — a class that includes thousands of pets, zoo animals and even wildlife — could do the same, he said. (Livestock, lab animals, hunting targets, rodeo animals and invertebrates are exempted.) If this approach were adopted elsewhere, Cupp said, a stampede of animal litigation could overrun courts.
“Any case that could lead to billions of animals having the potential to file lawsuits is a shocker in the biggest way,” Cupp said. “Once you say a horse or dog or cat can personally sue over being abused, it’s not too big a jump to say, ‘Well, we’re kind of establishing that they’re legal persons with that. And legal persons can’t be eaten.’ ”
Cupp emphasized that he supports Oregon’s progressive animal cruelty laws and rulings. But legislation is a more reasonable way of expanding animal protections, he said. Justice’s case, for example, could be addressed through a law requiring an abuser to cover an animal’s future care. “This would not be bad for society,” Cupp said. “We do need to evolve. We’re not doing enough to protect animals.”
Cupp points to a Connecticut law as one that maintains an important distinction between animals and people. It focuses on “the interests of justice,” not the animals’ interests.
Resilience.org, Joel B. Stronberg, A Horse Is a Horse of Course, Unless Given the Right to Sue 2— In Nature’s Name, Civil Notion, August 22, 2019
“Opponents of animals being granted standing in law courts warn of slippery slopes. Richard L. Cupp, a law professor at Pepperdine University, fears that giving Justice and other animals their day in court would open wide courtroom doors—overrunning the courts. Cupp has been quoted as saying–
We should not fool ourselves into minimizing the implications of these lawsuits by thinking that they are, in the long run, only about the smartest animals…it’s only a start.
Once you say a horse or dog or cat can personally sue over being abused, it’s not too big a jump to say, “Well, we’re kind of establishing that they’re legal persons with that. And legal persons can’t be eaten.”
Washington Post, Karin Brulliard, Three elephants in Connecticut just got a lawyer, November 14, 2017, quotes Cupp extensively regarding animal legal personhood:
“But Richard L. Cupp, a Pepperdine law school professor who has criticized the quest for legal personhood for animals, said that the appropriate way to deal with concerns about captive animals is through expanded animal welfare laws.
Extending legal personhood to animals might end up loosening the definition, Cupp said. If, for example, people decided it was occasionally necessary to approve invasive experiments on animals despite their legal personhood, then the same might theoretically be asked about experiments on humans, he said. Associating intelligence with personhood would also “not necessarily be good for the most vulnerable human persons,” Cupp said.
“It would not surprise me if these animals could be put in a better situation,” Cupp said of the elephants. “But we should focus on human responsibility, either by making sure that our laws are enforced, which sometimes they’re not, or expanding our laws. Our expansion of animal protection laws has been dramatic over the last 20 or 30 years. I’m arguing that should continue.”
The New Republic, Suzanne Monyak, When the Law Recognizes Animals as People, February 2, 2018
“We should not fool ourselves into minimizing the implications of these lawsuits by thinking that they are, in the long run, only about the smartest animals,” wrote Richard L. Cupp, an animal law professor at Pepperdine, in 2015 in a legal journal. “How many species get legal personhood based on intelligence is just the start.”
Crisis Magazine, Anne Hendershott, Pets are Becoming People Too Under the Law, January 11, 2019
“Pepperdine University law professor Richard Cupp has been very concerned about the personhood for pets movement for a more philosophical reason: humans are unique. Human beings are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Animals are not human beings, and never will be human beings—no matter how much we love and dote on them”.
Semana, January 12, 2019, Un elefante en la corte
Quote translated as follows: "’With this new paradigm, people could be inclined not only to look at smarter animals as humans, but less intelligent humans as animals,’" says law professor Richard Cupp to The Atlantic magazine.’”
Thalia Field, Personhood, August 5, 2019
“’Any case that could lead to billions of animals having the potential to file lawsuits is a shocker in the biggest way.” (Richard Cupp, Pepperdine Law School). “Once you say a horse or dog or cat can personally sue over being abused, it’s not too big a jump to say, ‘Well, we’re kind of establishing that they’re legal persons with that. And legal persons can’t be eaten.’”)
Cupp quoted extensively in Proposed Bill In New Jersey Would Be Used To Establish That Animals Treated Cruelly Are Persons Who Can Sue In Court, JD Supra, September 9, 2020
The Atlantic, Jill Lapore, The Elephant who Could be a Person, November 16, 2021:
“The Pepperdine law professor Richard Cupp, an ardent opponent of animal personhood, observed, about Justice the horse, “Any case that could lead to billions of animals having the potential to file lawsuits is a shocker in the biggest way. Once you say a horse or dog or cat can personally sue over being abused, it’s not too big a jump to say, ‘Well, we’re kind of establishing that they’re legal persons with that. And legal persons can’t be eaten.”
Citizen Canine. 2014 book by David Grimm, p. 244 (quote what was said there and around there).
Los Angeles Times, Nicholas Goldberg, Are animals entitled to basic legal rights, just like people?, July 11, 2022
“And if all animals have the right to sue, well, as one Pepperdine professor put it: Legal persons can’t be eaten.”