Oy. I'm full of curiosity about things such as "what grounds were they confiscated on?" and "what state does she live in?" (because state law is pertinent here) and "does this case have anything to do with the cats, or are the cats ancillary to the problem?" or "why can't someone else get the cats out of the shelter?"

Chances are very good that the Supreme Court is going to refuse to hear this case, and I say that knowing nothing about the case but knowing that the Supreme Court only entertains a tiny minority of the upwards of 5000 cases brought to it each year. Would the outcome for the cats be any different if she didn't press the case?

If the case has NOT already been rejected or disposed of by the STATE Supreme Court it is very unlikely that the Feds will even glance at it.

It sounds like a too-many-cats-in-the-house case, and the animals were confiscated and placed with shelters, who have been unable to find homes for all of them. In practical terms, they are at best being prevented from euthanizing THESE cats, because to keep their facilities from overflowing they must euthanize, so the fate is merely temporarily transferred to some OTHER cats.

I love cats. I love MY cat. But I have strays right outside the window and I can't see any other solution. It's very unlikely that anyone will be able to find a jurisdictional reason for any court to prevent this euthanization as it's widely recognized as a necessity.

Of course a "motion to stay" can, legally, be rejected. The court is essentially saying that no legal reason existed for them to halt the euthanization. The kittens, after all, are not on trial -- your friend is, on a probable nuisance charge of some kind, and the fate of the cats is inconsequential to that case.

But I have strays right outside the window and I can't see any other solution.

Solution = TNR (Trap/Neuter/Release), when the locality doesn't just kill the ferals and make that redundant.

If the case has NOT already been rejected or disposed of by the STATE Supreme Court it is very unlikely that the Feds will even glance at it.

She's appealing to USSC. That means she LOST her State case. She's been through the State Supreme. Obviously she wouldn't be going to the Fed Supreme if she hadn't.

...who have been unable to find homes for all of them.

They're not allowed to find homes for the cats until the case has been completely resolved. As I said, the cats won't end up homed if the case comes to an end unsatisfactorily, they'll end up euthanized. That's, ya know, the whole damn thing she's concerned about.

The kittens, after all, are not on trial -- your friend is, on a probable nuisance charge of some kind, and the fate of the cats is inconsequential to that case.

In some states, trying to get "Humane" Officers or other State employees to do their jobs can get you smacked down pretty hard. It doesn't usually pay to mess with Ol' Boy (and Girl) Networks, although someone somewhere should have oversight and keep them in line.

Thank you all just so much for your wisdom.

Easy there, buddy.

Shane, if you have any hope of helping with the situation, I think you have to be calmer. You haven't given a full explanation of the case, so it's kind of hard for anyone to give advice. If stilicho's guesses are right, you and friend are facing a tough battle that you're not likely to win. The only way to handle that is calmly, rationally, and with research - anything else makes you look like a hothead with an axe to grind.

They're not allowed to find homes for the cats until the case has been completely resolved.

Says who? Is this somewhere in the law? How could it be that they would be able to euthanize the cats, but not find homes for them? I'm asking for information.

Why can't someone else in your network simply apply to adopt these cats?

If the law won't allow the shelter to release the cats, it just won't, even if spay/neuter/release programs are a great idea. As with so many issues in activism, sometimes you have to concentrate on where your efforts can do the most good in the long term. If this case isn't going anywhere, what if you all invested your energies in promoting an alternate means of handling strays in your area and worked hard to pass that as law?

Again, we can probably help you think this through with more detail, but a nasty attitude isn't going to encourage anyone to help. And I think that you asked for legal advice, and stilicho has been very helpful in suggesting the ways that representatives of the law would view and argue this.

They're not allowed to find homes for the cats until the case has been completely resolved. As I said, the cats won't end up homed if the case comes to an end unsatisfactorily, they'll end up euthanized.

On reread, this makes some sense, I think: does this mean that, from the state's point of view, the case is "completely resolved?" Because if that's true, then yes, I guess they're within their rights to euthanize the cats now. Has your friend already filed the appeal or anything indicating an intent to appeal?

I might be wrong, but if the Supreme Court declines to entertain the case (likely, remember), then the case remains resolved and, from the state's point of view, was never unresolved. I think until any action of the Supreme Court, the decision of the state court stands.

I am totally NAL.

Thank you all just so much for your wisdom.

WTF, Shane.

Yes, Shane, I'm one of the lawyers around here and haven't weighed in because the information you have provided is wholly insufficient for offering any advice of any kind. The internet cannot help you here. To reiterate: the Internet cannot help you here. We don't even know the jurisdiction or cause of action.

Have your friend call your local bar association or look up "legal assistance" in your blue pages. Talk to someone local. Slow down and when they ask for clarification, either clarify or admit you don't know. Be prepared for the answer that the legal system does not consider imminent euthanasia of unowned/fostered stray cats an emergency. A court--particularly one that is looking down a 100 case call today--is very unlikely to be sympathetic when the case has been fully litigated and stay of judgment has been denied. That's likely the honest assessment, whether it's fair or whether it's what you want to hear.

As Miko has said, if your friend has exhausted the state appeals process, and a motion for stay pending action on her petition for writ of certiorari has been denied, as far as the legal system is concerned, the case is over and the "winner" may proceed to enforce whatever rights/judgment he/she/it was granted in the case.

If there are cats in a shelter which need homes to escape euthanasia, send people to the shelter to adopt them. I find it hard to believe that the shelter would be permitted to say "you can't adopt that cat! It's slated for euthanasia! Plus, we won the right to confiscate that car in court! No-one can have it, except us! For Killing!" If you can't find people to adopt them, that's a shame, and I am sorry for your friend. The law is unfair, particularly when it comes to rights in domestic pets.

Oh and to pick nits, the State didn't reject her motion for stay. That's not possible. A court may have denied her motion for stay, but really, I'm picking nits here.

Sorry. Look, trying elsewhere, I've just gotten this slew of answers that feel incredibly condescending and that tell her to do what she already has (i.e. finish State proceedings before going Fed), or in some cases a few comments that practically just snark and nothing else (usually without fully reading the question.) And a few helpful comments saying "Call the ACLU."

It's all a bit stressful. All she needed to know yesterday was whether the State (meaning the State COURT, thanks crush) could move forward with proceedings that stem from a judgment that has an appeal filed in the USSC that has not yet been turned down. This is CT and now I'm told evidently she has twenty days to do... something, I'm not sure what.

Thanks to all who sincerely tried to help. There's not much else I can do, and evidently she has some kind of legal counsel chiming in for her now.

Some of the problem stems from your belief that some respondents here aren't sincerely trying to help, I think. I'm sincerely trying to help when I say I think you're wrong about condescension here, and snark. Maybe you're reacting to responses you've received elswewhere.

I'm the king of that kinda shit. It (and loads of other crap) has made me pretty unpopular here and elsewhere at times. Don't confuse patience or bafflement for condescension, or you risk biting the hand that feeds, and then feeling bad about it later or wondering why you've suddenly become a thread-killer everywhere you go.

I'd help with legal ideas if I had a clue. I don't, so this is just me bloviating. I'm just trying to help, because I like you.

I was reading somewhere about global warming extending the cat breeding season and causing a surge in the number of unwanted kittens, but maybe this isn't the place for it.

Go easy, my friend.

shane, I hardly ever post AskMe questions. If it's time-sensitive, and you write it up for me in the usual AskMe format, I'd be happy to post it for you.

Which is her case?

Or if it's not there, what's the case name?

Nevermind, found it.

The bottom line:

The trial court found that the defendant was keeping forty-six live cats and one dead cat in a
950 square foot residence, much of which was so cluttered with personal effects, trash and bags of raw garbage that it was unusable. The court also found, and the evidence amply demonstrated, that the residence was, and had been for some time, in a ‘‘deplorable,filthy, unsanitary [and] unhealthy’’ condition, with cat feces, vomit and urine present throughout. The odor of cat urine was so strong that it was detectable from outside. We conclude that a person of ordinary intelligence would know that confining forty-six cats in these unhealthy conditions constituted a failure to provide proper care for the cats under any reasonable standard. Moreover, none of the cats were current in their rabies vaccinations and many of them were diseased, clearly
reflecting that they needed but had not received proper care. We conclude, therefore, that § 53-247 (a) is not vague as applied to the defendant’s conduct through § 22-329a.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.

Wow, that statement is quite a read.

The whole opinion is quite a read.

Her websites -

Alliance for Animal Rescue Society
http://www.geocities.com/helpcatrescuer/index.html
Protect Our Civil Liberties

News story

It's one of these sad tales. Shane, I do hope people can step up to provide homes for the cats.

I hope that this woman gets mental help. I'm sure her heart was in the right place, but she's clearly an animal hoarder.

I guess I don't count as having "sincerely tried to help". shane, take a deep breath. You're too close to this. From the outside your friend is considered at best a goofy cat lady, not an "animal rescue activist". From the outside, she was not caring for those cats, she was neglecting them atrociously. I feel sorry for her, but I can't see how this had any other outcome possible.

Also, I feel compelled to point out, this late in the thread and this early in the morning, one may not proceed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS, in the parlance) merely because one's case has proceeded all the way through the Supreme Court of the individual state (CTSC for Connecticut Supreme Court, for example, of ILSC or TXSC or CASC). Generally speaking, the state supreme court is the final word on matters of the state's laws and/or constitution and SCOTUS may not change their interpretation of the same. SCOTUS has authority to hear cases which present a federal question (for example, those which proceeded through the federal courts on the basis of a federal statute), which interpret the US Constitution, and/or involve a controversy among or between several states.

So, if I sue my neighbor because she keeps chickens in the back yard in violation of Illinois law and ILSC ultimately rules in my favor, the case is done. There is no cert in SCOTUS because ILSC interpreted only Illinois law (or possibly, but unlikely, the Illinois state constitution) and it's just a controversy between two little people in Illinois. There would have to be a federal right or privilege at stake (such as those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, or in the Civil Rights Act).

I did not read the decision linked above; I have no idea if this case impacts those federal rights or privileges. I can't think of a federally constitutionally guaranteed right to keep domestic pets.

So that's the quick and dirty version. The State SC also has ways of making sure the case ends with them. When I was a criminal appellate attorney, when would sometimes be foreclosed from proceeding past ILSC because of how ILSC decided the case.

Pretty much all criminal prosecutions impact your federal constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. However, some of those federal constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties are fairly well-settled. They may still feel open to interpretation, but legally-speaking, they are not really. SCOTUS has issued several opinions about them; they states are within themselves pretty uniform in applying those opinions; the states are among themselves pretty uniform in applying those opinions. We all pretty much know how that right shakes down in court. So the state supreme court is not really doing any interpreting of the federal right, privilege, liberty, statute or Constitution, even if I--the attorney--throw a federal basis into my plea for certiorari to the state supreme court.

The state right, privilege, liberty, statute or Constitution sometimes provides the only basis the court needs to make its decision and the state supreme court is thrilled to stop there.

In those cases, ILSC (or TCSC or CASC or CTSC) need not make an interpretation of a federal right, privilege, liberty, statute or Constitution to reach its decision. It can limit its holding to only the state right, privilege, liberty, statute or Constitution to make its ruling. When state supreme court says "We need not reach the federal question in making our ruling. . . ." you are pretty much foreclosed from gong further because there is nothing in the case over which SCOTUS has jurisdiction.

Sometimes it feels like there's a federal constitution principle at stake when, in our nice insular legal system, there really isn't.

Anyway.

The trial court found that the defendant was keeping forty-six live cats and one dead cat in a
950 square foot residence

That doesn't sound like her, but I'm in Ohio, not CT, and I don't know all the particulars except via e-mail.

I'm now trying to get a little perspective here myself and I'm not clicking on the links. Sorry, but obviously I need to calm down and get some distance, eh? I'm a bit stressed over my own stuff, so I apologize for not spending more time here.

I'll pass this on to my friend, who evidently has some legal help now.

I DO sincerely thank all of you for trying to help, and I apologize for my prickly cantankerous... whatever that was that was going on with me before. Thanks. Really.

Thanks, Shane. And please just keep in mind that there are at least two sides to every story.