Can the State Have It Both Ways?

At a Glance

The State says: Referring Petition 2025-003 to the Department may have satisfied the Administrative Procedure Act.

We believe: A citizen petition accepted for further consideration should receive a final written disposition.

Why it matters: If an agency can accept a petition, refer it internally, and never decide it, every Californian’s right to petition government is weakened.

When the Attorney General filed a demurrer asking the Sacramento Superior Court to dismiss our writ of mandate, I expected a straightforward legal argument.

Instead, I found something much more interesting.

The State’s response raises an important question that extends far beyond domestic ferrets.

That question could affect every Californian who relies on the Administrative Procedure Act to petition state agencies for regulatory change.

What Everyone Agrees On

There is very little dispute about the basic facts.

In 2025, I submitted Petition 2025-003 asking the California Fish and Game Commission to amend its regulations concerning domestic ferrets.

The Commission considered the petition at its June 11–12, 2025 meeting.

The Commission then voted unanimously, 5-0, to accept the petition for further consideration and referred it to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

None of that is disputed.

The disagreement begins with what happened afterward.

The State Says the Referral Was Enough

The Attorney General argues that the Commission satisfied its obligations under the California Administrative Procedure Act simply by referring the petition to the Department.

In other words, the State argues that accepting the petition and forwarding it internally constituted “any other action” permitted by Government Code section 11340.7.

That is now one of the central issues before the court.

The Public Records Act Told a Different Story

While preparing this lawsuit, I submitted several Public Records Act requests to learn how Petition 2025-003 was being evaluated.

The responses were surprising.

Initially, the Department reported that no responsive records existed.

Later, additional records were located. Among them was an internal petitions review document from April 29, 2026.

“No discussion.”

Notation beside Petition 2025-003 in an internal April 29, 2026 petitions review document.

While other wildlife petitions were actively discussed, the notation next to Petition 2025-003 simply read: “No discussion.”

Additional records showed that after litigation became likely, the Department issued a litigation-hold notice directing employees to preserve documents relating to the petition and my Public Records Act requests.

Those records naturally raise questions.

If the petition had been accepted for further consideration nearly a year earlier, why do the available records suggest so little substantive review?

Those are questions the court—not I—will ultimately evaluate.

The Authority Question

One section of the State’s memorandum caught my attention.

The Attorney General cites Fish and Game Code section 2118(k), explaining that:

“Animals may be added to or deleted from the statutory list by Commission regulations.”

That appears to recognize that the Commission possesses rulemaking authority over the prohibited animals list.

Later, however, the memorandum argues:

“It is not clear that the Commission has authority”

Notice what the State does not say.

It does not say the Commission lacks authority.

Instead, it says the issue is unclear.

That distinction may prove important.

After all, the Commission itself placed Petition 2025-003 on its agenda, considered it publicly, voted unanimously to accept it for further consideration, and referred it to the Department.

Those actions are consistent with an agency exercising authority over a rulemaking petition.

Whether they are also consistent with the State’s current legal position is a question I expect the court will carefully examine.

The Arguments That Appear Difficult to Reconcile

1. The State acknowledges that animals may be added to or deleted from the statutory list by Commission regulations.
2. The State also says it is not clear whether the Commission has authority to alter the designation of ferrets by regulation.
3. The Commission accepted Petition 2025-003 for further consideration and referred it to the Department.
4. The State now argues that the referral itself may have satisfied the APA.
5. The Department says it is not the proper respondent because it lacks the relevant regulatory authority.

Perhaps these arguments can be reconciled. But as a citizen reading the State’s demurrer, I believe they raise serious questions the court should consider.

This Case Is No Longer Just About Ferrets

When I began this effort, my goal was simple.

I wanted California to honestly evaluate whether domestic ferrets should continue to be regulated as prohibited wildlife.

That question remains important.

But this lawsuit has become something much larger.

The court is now being asked to decide what California’s Administrative Procedure Act actually guarantees to the public.

Those are very different interpretations of the law.

Why This Matters to Everyone

Today’s case involves domestic ferrets.

Tomorrow it could involve environmental regulations, occupational licensing, consumer protection, public health regulations, or any other issue governed by California’s administrative agencies.

The Administrative Procedure Act exists so citizens can ask their government to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations.

If agencies may indefinitely postpone making a final decision after accepting a petition, then every Californian has a stake in how this case is decided.

Looking Ahead

The Sacramento Superior Court will hear the Attorney General’s demurrers on October 2, 2026.

The hearing will not determine whether domestic ferrets become legal.

Instead, it will address a more fundamental question:

When California accepts a citizen petition for further consideration, must the agency eventually provide a final written disposition—or may it simply leave the petition unresolved?

That question affects far more than one species of animal.

It affects the relationship between California’s citizens and their government.

Whatever the answer ultimately is, it deserves to be clearly stated.

That is why this case matters.