Why New York Could Owe Peanut the Squirrel’s Owners $10 Million After Pet Was Seized and Euthanized
In what is shaping up to be one of the most shocking and emotionally charged animal rights stories in recent memory, the state of New York may soon find itself at the center of a legal storm. The controversy involves an unlikely figure — a squirrel named Peanut — whose tragic end has sparked outrage, lawsuits, and a debate about personal property rights versus public safety.
Peanut wasn’t just any squirrel. To his owners, Mark and Linda Thompson of upstate New York, he was family. Adopted after being rescued as an abandoned baby, Peanut had lived with the Thompsons for more than three years. He wore a tiny harness, rode on Mark’s shoulder during morning walks, and had amassed a local fan base thanks to his playful antics captured on social media. But earlier this year, a decision by state officials to seize and euthanize Peanut changed everything — and may now cost taxpayers up to $10 million in damages.
How Peanut Became a Family Member
The Thompsons never intended to become squirrel owners. Peanut was found by Mark while hiking in 2021, shivering beneath a tree, clearly too young to survive on his own. Wildlife rehabilitation centers were overwhelmed at the time, and when the couple was told they could either release him or surrender him for euthanasia, they chose a third option: they cared for him themselves.
Over the years, Peanut grew tame, affectionate, and extraordinarily bonded with the Thompsons. Videos of Peanut nibbling treats, curling up in a blanket, and even “helping” Linda in the garden went viral, gathering hundreds of thousands of views.
“It wasn’t like having a wild animal,” Linda later told reporters. “He was gentle, intelligent, and he loved us. Peanut wasn’t just a squirrel — he was part of our family.”
The State Steps In
Despite Peanut’s local celebrity status, his existence fell into a gray area of New York’s wildlife possession laws. The state prohibits private citizens from owning certain wild animals, including squirrels, unless they are licensed rehabilitators. In most cases, squirrels are supposed to be released back into the wild once they can survive independently.
Neighbors had allegedly filed complaints about Peanut, though accounts differ on whether the squirrel had ever posed a danger. Some say Peanut occasionally startled delivery drivers; others argue he was harmless. Regardless, in late 2024, state wildlife officers arrived at the Thompsons’ home with an order to seize him.
The couple begged officials to reconsider, providing proof of Peanut’s vaccinations and documentation from a veterinarian confirming his health. But within 48 hours, Peanut was euthanized at a state facility.
Outrage and Heartbreak
News of Peanut’s death spread quickly, sparking a wave of outrage on social media. Animal rights advocates condemned the decision as unnecessary and cruel. Supporters argued that Peanut posed no public health threat and that euthanizing a healthy, well-cared-for pet was an abuse of state power.
“Peanut’s case highlights the broken system we have when it comes to balancing wildlife regulation with compassion,” said one animal welfare attorney. “This was a preventable tragedy.”
The Thompsons, devastated, vowed to fight back. They soon filed a lawsuit against the state of New York seeking $10 million in damages for what they describe as an unlawful seizure and wrongful destruction of their property.
The Legal Case: Why $10 Million Is on the Table
At the heart of the case is the question: Was Peanut property?
Under U.S. law, pets are typically classified as personal property. Destroying someone’s pet without due process can therefore open the door to lawsuits for damages. While New York law restricts wild animal ownership, the Thompsons’ legal team argues that Peanut had long ceased being “wild” and was instead domesticated.
Their lawsuit alleges several key points:
-
Unlawful Seizure: Peanut was taken without sufficient legal justification, violating the couple’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.
-
Failure of Due Process: The Thompsons claim they were not given adequate opportunity to appeal or seek an alternative, such as transferring Peanut to a licensed sanctuary.
-
Emotional Damages: The destruction of Peanut caused severe emotional distress, which their attorneys argue should be compensable given Peanut’s role as a family companion.
-
Economic Damages: Peanut’s viral online presence generated modest income from sponsorships, which the family claims is now lost.
The $10 million figure is not arbitrary. It factors in potential punitive damages meant to hold the state accountable and to deter future heavy-handed enforcement.
Precedents and Possible Outcomes
Cases involving pets are notoriously complex. In most states, courts have traditionally valued animals only at their market price — often a negligible amount for pets like dogs, cats, or in this case, a squirrel. However, growing recognition of the emotional value of pets has shifted some rulings in favor of higher damages.
In 2019, for example, a Texas court awarded significant damages to a family whose dog was wrongfully euthanized by animal control. Legal experts say Peanut’s case could push the boundaries further, especially since the squirrel had social media fame and a unique, demonstrable bond with his owners.
If the Thompsons succeed, the case could set a precedent that compels states to handle similar situations with far greater care, ensuring due process before seizing or euthanizing unconventional pets.
The Public Debate
Peanut’s story has ignited a broader debate: should private citizens be allowed to keep wild animals if they pose no threat? Advocates argue that regulations exist for good reason — wild animals can spread disease and may behave unpredictably. But critics say blanket bans ignore individual circumstances.
“This wasn’t about public safety,” said one supporter at a recent rally. “This was about bureaucracy crushing compassion.”
Petition drives are already circulating, demanding changes to New York’s wildlife laws to allow exceptions for domesticated cases like Peanut’s. Legislators are reportedly considering a bill that would establish a review process before any state agency can euthanize a non-traditional pet.
The Thompsons Today
For the Thompsons, life without Peanut feels empty. His cage sits unused, his toys remain scattered in the corner of their living room, and the garden where he once played feels eerily quiet.
Mark, once reluctant to get involved in a lengthy court battle, now says he feels obligated to fight not only for Peanut but for other families who might face similar heartbreak.
“If this could happen to us, it could happen to anyone,” he said. “Peanut deserved better, and so do the people who love their animals.”
Conclusion: More Than Just a Squirrel
The case of Peanut the squirrel is about far more than one animal’s tragic fate. It is about the intersection of law, compassion, and the rights of everyday people. Whether or not the Thompsons ultimately win their $10 million lawsuit, the conversation has already begun — about how states treat unconventional pets, and about the emotional value animals hold in human lives.
As the legal battle unfolds, one truth is undeniable: Peanut may be gone, but his story will leave a lasting legacy in the fight for animal rights and owner protections. And in the eyes of the Thompsons, no dollar amount could ever truly measure what was taken from them.
