“There Is No Right to Associate with Pets Under the First Amendment”

In yesterday’s courtroom, Judge Edward Chen is so. Deschamps V. City of Sausalito. This is the factual background:

According to Mr. Deschamps, he claims that he is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In particular, he claims that SS 1983 violates the First Amendment. Deschamps claims that the complaints were brought by him because he believes that “…”[t]We were given three days notice to make the move to the tennis court, but now the company is taking down the cat shelter that I needed to care for my pets. Further details are provided by the TRO application. Deschamps states that he will no longer be allowed to use the “tent structure”, but that a standard one of 8×6 feet will be issued. According to him, the standard tent is insufficient because it does not meet his needs.[t]There isn’t enough room for my cats,” and “they are out.” [of]His “cats can rip it up easily” and the material is very thin. He contrasts this with his tent which “is made”. [up of]Canvas reinforced for strength[] my cants can’t tear up…. [If]My cats have escaped before they can acclimate on the tennis courts. They will wander off and get eaten or hit by cars.

You can say what you like about the plight of Mr. Deschamps, or how officials should handle homeless encampments. But I don’t think that the First Amendment has been violated.