Gary Kaskel wrote about the challenge to NYC's kill-and-test policy in
federal court:
 
>    The danger of letting this decision stand is that now any local public
>health department across the country can cite this decision as a legal basis
>to make anti-ferret policy.  WE MUST OVERTURN THIS DECISION.
 
This is misleading.  According to his own description of the case, the
challenge was solely on two U.S. constitutional grounds.  There is nothing
in such a decision that would forbid challenges to policies based on state
laws or precedents, or from challenging the factual basis  And, even if one
were interested in this particular argumentation, the ruling is not binding
on other jurisdictions.  In many legal matters, separate district courts
rule differently.
 
(In fact, if you're interested in trying to overturn the decision, now might
be a particularly poor time to appeal the decision.  A higher court would
probably not hear the case, as it would be relatively trivial from their
viewpoint [if not from ours].  On the other hand, if another district court
rules in favor of a ferret owner, that would present an interesting conflict
between district court rulings that an appeals court might decide warrants
attention.)
 
Give money, or don't, as you wish.  But please don't believe this is the one
and only chance to fight irresponsible health departments.  That is hyperbole.
 
___________
Sherman Dorn
Vanderbilt University
[log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 1136]