Judge Rules Against San Diego Humane Society’s Community Cat Program

Landmark Ruling Sends Ripples Through Animal Welfare Practices Nationwide

A California court has issued a landmark ruling that could reshape how shelters across the country manage free-roaming cats. Judge Katherine Bacal ruled against the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) on Friday (12/20/24), finding that its practice of releasing friendly, adoptable cats under its Community Cat Program (CCP) violates California animal protection laws, including Hayden’s Law. The decision underscores the legal and ethical obligations of shelters to care for stray and abandoned animals and raises critical questions about the future of animal welfare policies nationwide.

At the heart of the case was whether SDHS’s policy of categorizing adoptable cats as “community cats” and releasing them outdoors constitutes illegal abandonment. Plaintiffs, represented by attorney Bryan Pease, argued that SDHS failed in its duty to provide proper care for these animals, instead shifting responsibility onto communities ill-equipped to handle the burden. SDHS defended its program as a humane solution to shelter overcrowding and a model for reducing euthanasia rates.

Animal advocates and cat lovers celebrate outside the courthouse after Judge Bacal’s landmark ruling against San Diego Humane Society’s Community Cat Program, a decision hailed as a victory for humane treatment and accountability. Photo: Christine Haslett

A Victory for Accountability

The court’s decision sends a strong message to shelters nationwide: releasing friendly cats into potentially dangerous environments is not an acceptable solution to overpopulation. Plaintiffs alleged that SDHS recategorized thousands of adoptable cats as “community cats,” releasing them outdoors where they faced risks such as starvation, predation by coyotes, traffic accidents, and human cruelty.

“This ruling affirms that shelters cannot simply wash their hands of responsibility by calling these animals ‘community cats’”, said Pease. It’s a victory for transparency and accountability in shelter practices.”

The case also brought attention to SDHS’s financial resources. Despite receiving millions in taxpayer dollars and private donations annually, plaintiffs argued that SDHS prioritized cost-cutting measures over humane solutions, such as high-volume spay/neuter programs or adoption initiatives. Internal emails revealed during the trial showed concerns within SDHS leadership about potential public backlash if their practices became widely known.

Implications for Shelters Nationwide

This ruling has far-reaching implications for shelters across the United States, particularly those adopting similar community cat programs. Many shelters have embraced these programs as part of the “No Kill” movement, which aims to reduce euthanasia rates by managing free-roaming cat populations through Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) initiatives. While TNR is appropriate for feral cats, critics argue that lumping friendly, adoptable cats into these programs undermines their welfare and shifts responsibility onto economically challenged communities.

Animal welfare organizations such as Best Friends Animal Society have promoted community engagement strategies like “managed intake,” which limits the number of animals admitted to shelters, and “community cat” programs that rely on neighborhoods to care for stray animals. This ruling challenges those approaches sending a clear message that shelters cannot sidestep their legal and ethical obligations by reclassifying adoptable cats as “community cats.”

Criticism of Funding Priorities

Despite its significant financial resources, the SDHS has faced sharp criticism for its allocation of funds. Plaintiffs argued that while SDHS collects millions of taxpayer dollars and private donations annually, it has prioritized cost-cutting measures over humane solutions, such as expanding spay/neuter programs and adoption initiatives. Instead, SDHS has chosen to release friendly, adoptable cats into potentially dangerous outdoor environments under its Community Cat Program.

This criticism is further underscored by SDHS’s decision to retain O'Melveny & Myers LLP, a prominent international law firm, to defend its practices in court. The irony is striking: while SDHS claims financial constraints justify cutting corners on animal welfare, it spared no expense in hiring a powerhouse legal team to defend those very cost-cutting measures. Advocates argue that these funds would have been better spent on proactive solutions to address overpopulation and improve outcomes for the animals in their care.

This juxtaposition raises serious questions about SDHS’s priorities and whether its financial decisions truly align with its mission to protect and care for vulnerable animals.

Plaintiff attorneys Bryan Pease and Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi (center), joined by Betsy Denhart (left) and Wendy Aragon (right) of the Pet Assistance Foundation, celebrate a landmark victory for animal welfare. Photo: Christine Haslett

What’s Next?

While SDHS is expected to appeal the ruling, this decision sets a powerful precedent for other lawsuits challenging similar practices. One such case is currently unfolding in Riverside County, where Best Friends-affiliated consultants are under scrutiny for their role in shaping shelter policies.

For now, this ruling underscores the need for systemic change in how shelters address overpopulation and care for vulnerable animals. It also raises important questions about accountability within the “No Kill” movement and whether current strategies truly serve the best interests of animals or simply shift burdens onto communities.

A Turning Point for Animal Welfare

As shelters across the nation grapple with overcrowding and limited resources, this case serves as a wake-up call. Humane treatment must remain at the forefront of animal welfare practices, even amid financial constraints. The court’s decision challenges shelters to rethink their policies and prioritize transparency, accountability, and proactive solutions.

“This isn’t just about one shelter or one program,” said Pease. “It’s about ensuring that every animal has a chance at a safe and humane life.”

Judge Bacal’s ruling has set the stage for what could be a transformative moment in animal welfare law—one that demands both compassion and responsibility from shelters nationwide.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.