Law professor Jonathan Turley has presented a new way to scrutinize the administration of President Joe Biden: his dogs. In an unswerving commitment to satiate the appetite of his Fox News audience, Turley has presented an array of “legal” analysis on every Joe Biden scandal, regardless of its significance. His most recent “offense”? Biden’s dogs that have allegedly been biting Secret Service agents. Turley’s blog post includes supposed legal theories that present a potential for a constitutional debate.
According to Turley, the chief offender, a dog named Commander, has been involved in at least a dozen biting incidents. As such, under common law, the dog is now seemingly considered aggressive, making the Bidens strictly liable for such bites. Turley has stated that his main concern is the liability for these incidents may fall upon the taxpayers. However, one should remember that he also defended Donald Trump against a lawsuit regarding defamatory remarks.
Turley has compared Biden’s situation to an infamous case from San Francisco involving a pair of dog owners who were held criminally and civilly liable after their dogs killed a neighbor. The dogs involved in this case and did not bite anyone but were known to be aggressive – a condition that was sufficient for fault.
Turley suggests that the Federal Tort Claims Act may not implicitly block strict liability claims against the government. He cited Laird v. Nelms,
where the court ruled that the Act “precludes the imposition of liability if there has been no negligence or other form of ‘misfeasance or nonfeasance.’” However, Turley believes that negligence might be present in this case, as federal employees continue to endure a legally vicious dog.
While Turley continues to devote his intellectual resources to these scenarios, scrutinizing matters ranging from dog bites to Secret Service text deletions, other media outlets present alternative views and approach these issues with a distinct level of gravity.