The Attorney General brought an old ferret case back into our lawsuit. Reading the actual opinion revealed an interesting connection to Petition 2025-003.

Yesterday, the California Attorney General’s Office filed its reply in support of the State’s demurrer in our lawsuit over Petition 2025-003.

Along with the Reply came a Request for Judicial Notice , containing something I had not seen in many years: the actual 1999 Court of Appeal decision in Marshall Farms USA, Inc. v. California State Fish and Game Commission.

I remembered the case. I remembered the outcome.

But now, thanks to the Attorney General, I have the actual appellate opinion sitting in front of me.

And one part of it jumped off the page.

What Happened in Marshall Farms?

The Marshall Farms case goes back to the long-running dispute over California's classification of domestic ferrets.

The San Diego Superior Court had ruled that the Fish and Game Commission had a duty to determine whether the domestic ferret, Mustela furo, was “normally domesticated.”

The Commission appealed.

In 1999, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Commission did have a mandatory duty to make that determination — but also concluded that the Commission had already performed that duty when it adopted the regulation in 1975.

That distinction mattered.

Because the Commission had already made the original determination, ordering it to make another one would effectively require it to reconsider or amend an existing regulation. The appellate court concluded that was a discretionary regulatory decision that a court could not compel through a writ of mandate.

Quite the opposite.

The disposition expressly states:

In plain English, the Commission could revisit the ferret question. The court simply couldn't order it to exercise that discretionary authority.

And Then There Is Footnote 12

This is where things get particularly interesting in 2026.

The Court of Appeal explained that California's Administrative Procedure Act provides a way for someone to ask an agency to amend or repeal an existing regulation.

The opinion specifically pointed to Government Code sections 11340.6 and 11340.7.

It explained that Marshall Farms could file a petition asking the Commission to amend or repeal the regulation and described the petition procedure established by those sections.

On March 4, 2025, we filed Petition 2025-003 with the California Fish and Game Commission under that Administrative Procedure Act process.

Twenty-six years after the Marshall Farms decision pointed ferret advocates toward the APA petition process, we used it.

And that's the process at the center of our lawsuit today.

You can read the Attorney General's filing and the complete Marshall Farms opinion in Exhibit A of the Request for Judicial Notice .

What We're Asking the Court to Do Today

The Attorney General is relying on Marshall Farms to support the proposition that a court cannot force the Fish and Game Commission to exercise its discretionary rulemaking authority.

I don't disagree with that.

We're asking something much narrower:

The Commission considered Petition 2025-003 in June 2025 and voted unanimously to give it “further consideration,” referring it to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and recommendation.

The Attorney General now argues that this satisfied the Commission's statutory obligation because Government Code §11340.7(b) allows an agency to “take any other action” it determines is warranted by a petition.

That's now one of the central issues before the court.

The Commission didn't grant Petition 2025-003.

It didn't deny Petition 2025-003.

It chose further consideration.

And more than a year later, that further consideration still hasn't produced a decision on the petition.

How Do You Reconsider a Decision That Hasn't Been Made?

There's another part of §11340.7 that makes this especially interesting.

Immediately after subsection (b), subsection (c) provides a procedure allowing an interested person to request reconsideration of an agency's decision on a petition.

That request must be made within 60 days after the date of the decision.

To be clear, that does not mean the Commission has 60 days to decide our petition.

The 60-day deadline applies to the person seeking reconsideration.

That's one of the reasons I have difficulty accepting an interpretation of the law under which a petition can be finished for purposes of the government's obligations while remaining undecided for purposes of the petitioner's rights.

Ultimately, that is a legal question for the court — not for me.

Marshall Farms Has Come Full Circle

There is some remarkable history here.

In 1999, the Court of Appeal said the Commission retained the authority to reconsider the regulatory status of domestic ferrets.

The court also pointed ferret advocates toward California's Administrative Procedure Act if they wanted to petition the Commission to amend or repeal the regulation.

We eventually followed that route.

We filed the petition.

The Commission considered it.

The Commission voted for further consideration.

And now we're in court asking whether “further consideration” can become the end of the process without ever producing an answer.

None of this guarantees how Judge Chang will rule.

Marshall Farms is an unpublished appellate decision, and the Attorney General has submitted it to the court as part of the State's Request for Judicial Notice . The State believes it supports its position.

But I'm glad they submitted it.

Because after all these years, we can finally read exactly what the Court of Appeal said — and see how a case from 1999 connects directly to the fight over Petition 2025-003 today.

The tentative ruling on the State's demurrer is expected October 1.

And, after more than a quarter century, the old Marshall Farms ferret case has come full circle.