People can get passionate about their pets. We understand that. And, as we’ve mentioned before, we appreciate creative lawyering. We really, really do. But sometimes — to paraphrase Justice Holmes — seeing a taking lurking in everything can “go too far.”
Here’s the latest example. In Concerned Dog Owners of California v. City of Los Angeles, No. B218003 (Apr. 29, 2011), the California Court of Appeal held that it was not a taking for the city to require pet owners to spay or neuter their animals. The pet owners raised a host of constitutional challenges, including a takings claim. The court rejected all of them:
CDOC argues that by threatening to cause a pet to be altered without the owner‘s permission, the City threatens an unlawful “taking” and that “sterilization reduces the value of the dog or cat, as well as takes the property right of the ability to have future puppies or kittens.”
…
Here, the Ordinance constitutes a regulatory measure which requires all owners of cats and dogs to spay or neuter the animal or comply with one of the exemptions. The Ordinance does not permit the city to effectuate a physical invasion or acquisition of the animals nor does it deprive owners of all economically viable use. Those individuals who do not wish to sterilize their dog or cat, for economic reasons or otherwise, may purchase a “breeding permit,” pursuant to section 53.15.2, subdivision (b)(2)(F). Furthermore, there is a clear relationship between spaying and neutering dogs and cats, and the lowering the animal population in the City.
Slip op. at 14-15.
No “physical invasion?” Tell the dogs and cats that had their private bits “taken” that it was merely regulation at work. They might have a different view, but none were available for comment.