Legalize
Ferrets
After all, they’re called Domestic Ferrets!
California referred our petition for “review and recommendation.” More than a year later, there is still no decision on the petition.
On June 12, 2025, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to refer Petition 2025-003 to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife “for review and recommendation.” Our lawsuit does not ask the court to legalize ferrets or tell the Commission how to rule. It asks whether that referral could become the end of the statutory petition process without a resulting decision.
Can an agency refer a petition for “review and recommendation” and then treat the referral itself as completion of the process—even when no resulting decision follows?
Petition
Petition 2025-003 seeks amendment of California’s regulation restricting domestic ferrets.
Current stage
The State has filed its Reply in support of its demurrer. Briefing is now complete.
Next step
Tentative ruling expected October 1, 2026. Oral argument may follow October 2 if requested.
Latest update
September 10, 2026
The Attorney General has filed the State’s Reply in support of its demurrer. The State argues that the Commission satisfied Government Code §11340.7 when it referred Petition 2025-003 to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Commission’s actual June 2025 motion was specific: Petition 2025-003 was referred to the Department “for review and recommendation.”
Our position is not that the Commission lacked authority to make that referral. The question is whether making the referral itself completed the statutory petition process when no resulting Commission decision followed.
The State also submitted the actual 1999 Court of Appeal opinion in Marshall Farms USA, Inc. v. California State Fish and Game Commission. That opinion specifically identifies the Administrative Procedure Act petition procedure under Government Code §§11340.6 and 11340.7 as the route available to seek amendment or repeal of the ferret regulation.
That is the procedure we used 26 years later when we filed Petition 2025-003.
Tentative ruling
October 1, 2026
Expected by 2:00 p.m.
If oral argument is requested after the tentative ruling:
October 2, 2026
11:00 a.m.
Sacramento Superior Court
Department 16B
If oral argument is requested after the tentative ruling:
October 2, 2026
11:00 a.m.
Sacramento Superior Court
Department 16B
The case in plain English
California created a process allowing members of the public to petition state agencies for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations. We used that process.
The Commission did not reject Petition 2025-003 at the outset. It formally considered the petition and voted unanimously to refer it to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife “for review and recommendation.”
The State says the referral itself was enough. We say a referral for “review and recommendation” was a step in the process—not necessarily the end of it.
The court is being asked to determine what Government Code §11340.7 requires. It is not being asked to decide whether ferrets should be legal.
Our position is that the Commission may retain discretion over the substantive result while still having mandatory duties concerning the petition process itself.
How we got here
March 4, 2025 — Petition filed
Petition 2025-003 asked the Commission to review California’s treatment of domestic ferrets.
June 12, 2025 — Commission votes 5-0
The Commission unanimously adopted the staff recommendation to refer Petition 2025-003 to CDFW “for review and recommendation.”
April 2, 2026 — CDFW reports no responsive records
In response to a Public Records Act request seeking specified records concerning review of Petition 2025-003, CDFW stated that after a “thorough and diligent search,” it found “no documents responsive to your request.”
March 2026 — Writ petition filed
LegalizeFerrets.org asked the Sacramento Superior Court to require completion of the administrative process.
May 2026 — State files demurrer
The State asked the court to dismiss the case at the pleading stage.
September 10, 2026 — State files Reply
The Attorney General argues that the June 2025 referral constituted “other action” permitted by §11340.7(b) and satisfied the Commission’s obligation.
October 1, 2026 — Tentative ruling expected
The Superior Court’s tentative ruling on the State’s demurrer is expected by 2:00 p.m.
October 2, 2026 — Oral argument if requested
If a party timely requests oral argument after the tentative ruling, the matter is set for 11:00 a.m. in Department 16B.
What the dispute is now
Government Code §11340.7(b) permits an agency to grant or deny a petition in part, grant other relief, or “take any other action” it determines is warranted by the petition.
The State argues that the Commission’s June 2025 referral was that “other action” and therefore satisfied the statute.
The question for the court
If the Commission determined that Petition 2025-003 warranted referral to CDFW “for review and recommendation,” did making the referral itself complete the statutory process—or was that referral an intermediate step that contemplated further agency action?
Section 11340.7(c) also provides that an interested person may request reconsideration of an agency’s decision on a petition within 60 days after that decision.
That does not give the Commission a 60-day deadline to decide the petition. But it does raise a practical question: if the referral completed the Commission’s obligation, what decision exists for an interested person to ask the Commission to reconsider?
What Marshall Farms actually says
The State’s latest filing includes the full 1999 appellate opinion in Marshall Farms USA, Inc. v. California State Fish and Game Commission.
The Court of Appeal held that the Commission had already made the required domestication determination when it adopted the regulation in 1975. Because that mandatory duty had already been performed, the court would not use mandamus to force the Commission to reconsider or amend the existing regulation.
But the opinion also confirms that the Commission retains authority to reconsider whether domestic ferrets are normally domesticated.
Marshall Farms did not say the Commission lacked authority. It said the court could not compel the Commission to exercise its discretionary rulemaking authority after the prior mandatory duty had already been performed.
Footnote 12 is especially relevant today. It identifies Government Code §§11340.6 and 11340.7 as the APA petition procedure available to someone seeking amendment or repeal of the regulation.
That is the procedure LegalizeFerrets.org ultimately used in filing Petition 2025-003.
Read the key documents
We believe the public should be able to examine the filings and evidence directly.
Opposition to Respondents’ Demurrer
The principal legal argument explaining why the case should proceed.
Exhibit A — Commission Vote on Petition 2025-003
Transcript excerpt documenting the unanimous referral to CDFW “for review and recommendation.”
Exhibit B — Final Notice of Statutory Noncompliance
The pre-litigation notice requesting corrective action.
Exhibit C — Public Records Act Requests and Responses
Requests concerning agency review, evaluation, CEQA activity, and related work.
Exhibit D — 1998 Marshall Farms Superior Court Order
The trial-court order concerning the Commission’s authority and duties involving ferret classification.
1999 Marshall Farms Court of Appeal Opinion — DOJ Exhibit A
The appellate opinion submitted by the Attorney General. It reversed the writ compelling further action while confirming Commission authority and identifying the APA petition process under Government Code §§11340.6 and 11340.7.
The State’s demurrer filings
The State’s filings set out its arguments concerning agency discretion, Government Code §11340.7, CDFW’s role, the Public Records Act claim, and Marshall Farms.
State Demurrer Filing 1
Respondents’ filing challenging the writ petition at the pleading stage.
State Demurrer Filing 2
Additional demurrer-related filing submitted by Respondents.
State Demurrer Filing 3
Supporting document filed with the State’s demurrer package.
State Demurrer Filing 4
Related filing associated with Respondents’ challenge.
State Demurrer Filing 5
Additional source document from the State’s demurrer package.
State Reply / Request for Judicial Notice — September 10, 2026
The Attorney General’s latest filing, including the 1999 Marshall Farms appellate opinion as Exhibit A.
Why this matters beyond ferrets
California’s petition process is supposed to give the public a meaningful way to ask agencies to reconsider regulations.
If an agency can accept a petition, refer it for review and recommendation, and then treat the referral itself as the completed process even when no resulting decision follows, the petition procedure loses much of its practical value.
This case is about government accountability, transparent decision-making, and what Californians are entitled to when they use the regulatory petition process state law provides.
How to help
Legal research, public-records requests, filing fees, outreach, and public education all take time and money. Please stay involved if you believe California’s ferret ban deserves a real and transparent review.
