Peanut the Squirrel's Owners Seek $10M Over Death of 'Irreplaceable' Animal
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The owners of P'Nut the Squirrel and a raccoon named Fred are suing the State of New York for $10 million in damages after the animals were euthanized last year.
Mark Longo and Daniela Bittner filed the lawsuit on Thursday in the New York Court of Claims, alleging constitutional violations and wrongful killing of their animals by state officials. The lawsuit names the state, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the Department of Health (DOH) as defendants.
Newsweek contacted Longo's Attorney Nora Constance Marino, the DEC, DOH and the State of New York for comment by email.
Why It Matters
The lawsuit alleges that the seizure and killing of P'Nut and Fred were not only a violation of New York's wildlife laws, but also an infringement of the owners' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Whether such laws even apply is debatable—the plaintiffs maintain neither P'Nut nor Fred were "wild animals" under the law, but rather "companion animals." If successful, the case could set precedent for how far state agencies can go in enforcing wildlife regulations, particularly when animals are domesticated and kept in private homes.
The incident unfolded just before the 2024 presidential election, sparking widespread online outrage, and even bomb threats against officials. It became a rallying point for critics of government overreach, drawing attention from public figures such as Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.
P'Nut the squirrel with Mark Longo.
P'Nut the squirrel with Mark Longo.
@peanut_the_squirrel12 /Instagram
What To Know
Longo and Bittner describe P'Nut's personality and abilities as unique and irreplaceable. Fred's personality and abilities, while still developing, were showing signs he too would be unique and irreplaceable—though they intended to release him back into the wild.
The animals were both kept inside their home. New York law prohibits keeping squirrels and raccoons as pets because they are classified as wild animals.
Many of P'Nut's fans knew about the couple's sanctuary because of his social media presence, and many donated because of his stardom. P'Nut's likeness, antics, and image were used for promotion, endorsements, sponsorships, and marketing by way of plaintiff D&M, including on Cameo and OnlyFans. Fred was beginning to build his own online following.
The couple are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along with legal fees and costs, claiming "severe emotional distress, humiliation, and damage to reputation."
According to the lawsuit, a group of DEC and DOH agents, along with other law enforcement officers, arrived at the couple's Pine City property on October 30, 2024, to execute a search warrant. Both animals were seized during the raid and later killed by state officials.
DEC officials said that P'Nut bit an agent through thick leather gloves during the raid, prompting both animals to be euthanized and decapitated for rabies testing. The state has since confirmed the tests were negative.
The complaint alleges the killings were "not due to a fear of rabies," but were a "senseless act of violence" and "obscene demonstration of government abuse."
The plaintiffs claim they were "unlawfully detained without probable cause and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure," and that "despite having no evidence of criminal activity, Defendants proceeded to arrest Plaintiffs and initiate baseless charges."
The suit also alleges that the seizure exceeded the scope of the warrant and that requests for the animals' remains have gone unanswered.
"Defendants have engaged in a pattern of conduct that has deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments," the complaint states.
It adds: "The acts and omissions of the Defendants were intentional, malicious, and taken with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs."
The filing follows an earlier lawsuit in Chemung County Supreme Court targeting local and state officials over the same incident.
What People Are Saying
Longo told the New York Post: "This is our opportunity to make change and seek justice for P'Nut and Fred."
Marino, Longo's attorney, told the newspaper: "I hope justice is done, not just for my clients, but for our civil rights, P'Nut and Fred, and all animals."
The October raid and subsequent animal killings drew national attention in the final days before the presidential election. Then Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance said at a rally in November: "Don is fired up about P'Nut the squirrel."
Donald Trump Jr. said at a rally: "Justice for Peanut! Our government will let in 16,000 rapists, they will let in 13,000 murderers, they will let in 600,000 criminals across our border, but if someone has a pet squirrel without a permit, they will go in there and kill the squirrel."
Elon Musk wrote on X: "Government overreach kidnapped an orphan squirrel and executed him."
What Happens Next
No trial date has been set in either the Court of Claims case, or the related Chemung County action.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republican Met With Loud Boos, 'Shame' Chants at Town Hall
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Representative Doug LaMalfa, a California Republican, was met with boos and jeers at a town hall meeting on Monday over his support for President Donald Trump. It comes after a series of similar incidents, including one just over a week ago, in which Nebraska Republican Representative Mike Flood faced the public's wrath over several Trump administration policies. Newsweek has contacted LaMalfa's office for comment via email. Why It Matters Town halls have become tense and rowdy affairs for Republicans in recent months, as lawmakers face the scorn of voters over the Trump administration's policies, especially around cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and veterans' health care. Representative Doug LaMalfa speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 15, 2022. Representative Doug LaMalfa speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 15, 2022. Francis Chung/E&E News/POLITICO/AP What To Know LaMalfa faced backlash at the town hall in Chico, a college town 90 miles north of Sacramento, over Trump's economic policies and the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The roughly 650 attendees at the local Elks Lodge booed, jeered and cursed at LaMalfa, calling him a "liar," an "ahole." At one point, someone yelled, "F**** you!" when the moderator called on an audience member. The crowd also chanted "Shame! Shame! Shame!" at him. The crowd expressed particular anger over the Epstein case after a joint Justice Department and FBI memo last month indicated no further disclosures would be made. One attendee shouted: "You all left, the speaker of the House released you guys so you didn't have to deal with releasing the files," referencing House Speaker Mike Johnson's decision to send lawmakers on recess before voting on a resolution to release more information. LaMalfa acknowledged the criticism, saying: "It's interesting the Epstein situation was not an issue during the Biden administration," which drew more boos and jeers. He also called for "very clear transparency" on the investigation and expressed hope that additional information would be available when Congress reconvenes. "I think it's a bad look to have this information continue to be suppressed, but there's also people involved in the way those files at some level need to be redacted," he added. Frustration also focused on Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, who was recently moved to a minimum-security Texas prison. One attendee shouted: "She needs to still get her time and be held accountable," which LaMalfa acknowledged. Audience members pressed LaMalfa on broader accountability, asking: "Do you believe that elected officials who knowingly protect and enable criminal behavior, including insurrection, fraud and sexual abuse, should be removed from office?" LaMalfa replied: "Everybody should be held accountable whether you're elected or not if you've done an illegal activity," citing due process for Maxwell and participants in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Attendees shouted: "You should be ashamed of yourself!" and "No!" in response to his answer. The town hall also focused on Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill." Attendees questioned cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare, projected to total $1.1 trillion over the next decade. LaMalfa maintained there were "no cuts to the people themselves," prompting someone to shout, "You're lying!" He also faced criticism over Trump's tariffs, particularly their impact on farmers. One audience member asked: "If you're not here to announce your resignation, why aren't you here to apologize to the farmers of the North State because of your support for the Trump tariffs?" LaMalfa responded: "I'm not here to do either, thanks. Do you want to actually talk about something productive?" LaMalfa's town hall is just the latest in a series of heated meetings with constituents that have escalated since Trump took office. Some gatherings have ended with constituents forcibly removed, threatened with arrest or even tased—like at the April town hall held by Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, an action she defended. Weeks prior, National Republican Committee Chairman Michael Whatley advised GOP lawmakers to avoid in-person town halls or hold them virtually. As a result, several Republicans opted not to hold meetings, leaving space for Democrats—including Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and California Representative Ro Khanna—to appear at the events, sometimes even outside their home states. Democrats, however, have faced their own confrontations. At a California town hall in April, one frustrated voter told Representative Laura Friedman: "I don't believe that you have pushed hard enough. I don't believe that you have fought hard enough." Meanwhile, some Republicans, including Trump, have dismissed concerns about the trend. In a post on social media in March, he said the heckling was the work of "paid troublemakers." He also claimed that "Radical Left Democrats are paying a fortune to have people infiltrate the Town Halls of Republican Congressmen/women and Senators." Senator Jim Banks skipped a town hall organized by his constituents in Indiana in late March and sent doughnuts to the waiting crowd, which he accused of being Democrats. But polls have shown that voters are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Trump administration, with the president's approval rating dropping to an all-time low in several recent surveys. And that extends to Republicans, with YouGov/Economist polling showing a sharp decline in Trump's support among members of his own party since January. Polling suggests it is a result of concerns about his handling of the economy. But polls have also shown that Republicans are not satisfied with how the administration has handled the Jeffrey Epstein case. In a YouGov/Economist poll from the beginning of August, 53 percent of Republicans said they believe the government is covering up evidence it has about Epstein. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump, on Truth Social in March: "Paid 'troublemakers' are attending Republican Town Hall Meetings. It is all part of the game for the Democrats, but just like our big LANDSLIDE ELECTION, it's not going to work for them!" What Happens Next Senior Republicans are likely to repeat earlier calls for lawmakers to stop conducting in-person town halls, especially if voter anger intensifies.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump Will Tell Putin 'All Options Are on the Table': Bessent
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said President Donald Trump wants to end the bloodshed in Ukraine but "not at any cost" ahead of the crunch summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, August 15. "I think everyone has been frustrated with President Putin," Bessent told Bloomberg Television in an interview on Wednesday morning. "We expected that he would come to the table in a more fulsome way. It looks like he may be ready to negotiate, and we put secondary tariffs on the Indians for buying Russian oil. "And I could see, if things don't go well, then sanctions or secondary tariffs could go up." Bessent added: "I'm not going to get ahead of the president, but the president is the best at creating leverage for himself, and he will make it clear to President Putin that all options are on the table." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores Major Legal Win in Accessing Sensitive Data of Millions
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A divided federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can access sensitive personal data held by several federal agencies, rejecting claims that the move violates privacy protections. In a 2-1 decision issued on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked DOGE-related personnel from obtaining administrator-level access to information at the Treasury Department, the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education. The ruling remands the case for further proceedings. Newsweek has contacted DOGE for comment via email outside regular office hours. The Justice Department declined to comment following the ruling. Why It Matters A divided federal appeals court ruling in favor of DOGE could significantly shift the balance between privacy protections and executive authority. The decision to grant embedded cross-agency teams broad, administrator-level access to sensitive personal data—including Social Security numbers, tax records and health information—strengthens the president's ability to direct internal modernization efforts across the federal bureaucracy. It also sets a potential precedent that could make it harder for unions, advocacy groups and individuals to challenge similar data-access policies in the future, narrowing judicial oversight when efficiency initiatives intersect with privacy concerns. Anti-DOGE protesters outside the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Washington, D.C., on February 5. Anti-DOGE protesters outside the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Washington, D.C., on February 5. Alex Wong/Getty What To Know The case stems from an executive order that President Donald Trump signed on January 20, which created DOGE to modernize "Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." The order directed agency heads to establish internal DOGE teams and provide "full and prompt access" to unclassified systems and records. Initially headed by Elon Musk, DOGE has been a controversial element of Trump's second term, overseeing spending and staffing cuts across agencies and facing multiple lawsuits. As a special government employee, Musk could serve in the role for only 130 days, and his tenure as the head of DOGE ended in May shortly before a public disagreement with the president. In February, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction limiting DOGE affiliates' access to certain data. The appeals court stayed that injunction in April pending appeal. The plaintiffs—a coalition that includes the American Federation of Teachers, several other labor unions and individual recipients of government benefits—had argued that granting DOGE affiliates such access violated the federal Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They said the data involved could include Social Security numbers, citizenship information, tax records, health histories and other personal identifiers. Judge Julius Richardson, joined by Judge G. Steven Agee, concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to justify preliminary relief. Writing for the majority, Richardson said, "The Privacy Act does not prohibit sharing information with those whose jobs give them good reason to access it." He also compared DOGE's broad modernization mandate to that of a consultant who must first survey systems to determine necessary improvements. The opinion also questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue, noting that they had not alleged their specific records had been accessed, and whether the actions at issue constituted "final agency action" under the APA. The court further observed that the Privacy Act's civil remedies might preclude APA-based claims for equitable relief. Richardson's opinion cited a June U.S. Supreme Court order in a separate case that allowed DOGE access to Social Security Administration data while litigation continued. "This case and that one are exceedingly similar," Richardson wrote, adding that the precedent informed the court's equitable discretion. In dissent, Judge Robert King argued that the district court acted "quickly—but extremely carefully" in blocking DOGE's access given the scope and sensitivity of the data. King warned that the executive order had granted "unfettered, unprecedented, and apparently unnecessary access" to personal information for millions of Americans and criticized the majority for adopting what he described as a "heightened standard" for likelihood of success. The unions involved, which include the National Federation of Federal Employees and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. What People Are Saying Aman George, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, commenting on a different federal court ruling that declined to block DOGE's access to health and labor data, said in a news release on June 27: "While today's decision is disappointing, the court made clear it shares our deep concerns. We are committed to continuing this case and holding the administration accountable for exposing millions of Americans' private records to politically motivated operatives with no legal authority to access them." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, sharply criticized the Supreme Court's June decision, writing in dissent: "In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." What Happens Next The appeals court's decision does not end the litigation. The case returns to the district court for further proceedings on the plaintiffs' underlying claims. The outcome represents a significant legal victory for the administration's DOGE initiative, reinforcing earlier high-court signals that agency-embedded DOGE teams may access certain records to perform modernization work. Still, the broader legal battle over the scope of such access—and its compatibility with privacy protections—remains unresolved.
