By Vicky Quintanilla
What happened in Los Angeles 17 years ago
➤ 2008: Rescuers exposed filthy, abusive shelter conditions.
➤ County retaliated by suspending adoption/rescue rights.
➤ With the No Kill Advocacy Center, they sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983. In Nguyen v. County of Los Angeles (2008–2009), the court agreed that suspending volunteer/rescue privileges in retaliation for speech violated the First Amendment.
➤ Result: Rights to rescue and volunteer restored, setting precedent.
What Section 1983 Means for You
➤ Right to speak out: Criticizing a government-run shelter is constitutionally protected.
➤ No retaliation allowed: Officials cannot ban, block, or deny access because of speech.
➤ Evidence doesn’t need a confession: Retaliation can be proven if access is withdrawn soon after you speak out and no valid reason is given.
➤ Loss of benefits = harm: Volunteering, adopting, or pulling animals are “benefits.” Even if not rights, the Supreme Court says they cannot be taken away because of speech.
➤ Threats count too: Being told “you’ll be banned if you speak out” is retaliation—it chills speech and supports a claim.
Why This Matters
➤ Rescues and volunteers are the eyes and ears inside.
➤ If silenced, animals have no voice.
➤ Section 1983 is a federal tool to fight back and restore access
What Polk County Animal Control, Florida, has done is much worse — a phone ban, rescue ban, volunteer ban, drive-through adoptions, “Bad Dog” sign, gagging contracts, record delays, and more. What the Polk County Board of Commissioners has done is stand by, protect the Sheriff, and strip citizens of their voice, censoring our speech instead of protecting the animals and the public.
Full article: https://www.nathanwinograd.com/section-1983-to-the-rescue/