## Facts

- New York City’s Health Code classified ferrets as animals that could be barred from the city as “dangerous,” resulting in a citywide prohibition on keeping ferrets as household pets.
- City policy required that any ferret reported to have bitten a human be surrendered to the Department of Health and euthanized for rabies testing, rather than quarantined.
- An association of current and prospective ferret owners challenged both the ban and the bite policy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection.
- The City justified the rules with evidence of serious ferret attacks (often involving infants and children), a regional rabies alert, and asserted uncertainty about the reliability of quarantine to rule out rabies in ferrets compared with dogs and cats.
- The City moved to dismiss; because the motion relied on evidentiary submissions, the court converted it to summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the ferret ban and mandatory euthanasia/testing policy violated substantive due process as irrational interference with asserted liberty or property interests in keeping ferrets as pets.
2. Whether treating ferrets differently from dogs and cats (ban and euthanasia/testing versus permitted ownership and quarantine) violated equal protection under rational-basis review.
3. Whether due process required a pre-deprivation or additional post-deprivation hearing before seizure and euthanasia of a ferret reported to have bitten a human.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for the City, and the complaint was dismissed.
- The ferret ban and post-bite euthanasia/testing policy were upheld as rationally related to legitimate public health and safety goals.
- The differential treatment of ferrets versus dogs and cats was upheld as rational.
- The procedures surrounding seizure and euthanasia of biting ferrets were held sufficient given the public health interests and available remedies.

## Legal Principles

- No fundamental constitutional right exists to own a particular type of household pet; animal ownership is subject to reasonable public health and safety regulation.
- Under rational-basis review, animal-control measures are constitutional if a government could reasonably believe the measures address legitimate concerns (e.g., preventing attacks and controlling rabies), even if they are not the least restrictive means.
- Equal protection permits different regulatory treatment of animal species when supported by a plausible health or safety rationale.
- In public health and dangerous-animal contexts, due process may allow immediate action without a prior hearing when swift measures are justified; the adequacy of process depends on balancing private interests, risk of error, and governmental interests.

## Conclusion

The court upheld New York City’s prohibition on ferrets and its requirement that biting ferrets be euthanized for rabies testing, holding that the measures satisfied substantive due process, equal protection, and procedural due process under deferential rational-basis analysis driven by public health and safety concerns.


N.Y.C. Friends of Ferrets v. City of New York, 876 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)