Key Point Summary – Peanut the squirrel lawsuit

• Owners seek $10M over killing of squirrel and raccoon
• Lawsuit claims constitutional rights violations and abuse
• Incident sparked national outrage and celebrity attention
• State says animals were euthanized after squirrel bit agent
• Case could set precedent for wildlife laws on domesticated pets

The fight for justice over a beloved squirrel named P’Nut has exploded into a $10 million legal battle. His owners, Mark Longo and Daniela Bittner, filed the Peanut the squirrel lawsuit in the New York Court of Claims, accusing state officials of killing their “irreplaceable” companion in a brutal raid.

They say this wasn’t just about an animal. It was about government overreach, the violation of constitutional rights, and the destruction of something unique and deeply personal.

The Heart of the Case

The suit names the State of New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the Department of Health (DOH) as defendants. The couple’s legal team argues that P’Nut and a young raccoon named Fred were not “wild animals” under state law, but “companion animals” with personalities, online followings, and even sponsorship deals.

If they win, the ruling could redefine how far wildlife agencies can go in seizing and killing animals that have been domesticated and kept inside private homes.

From Viral Fame to Tragic End

P’Nut wasn’t just a pet. He was a social media star with thousands of fans. His likeness, antics, and image appeared on platforms from Cameo to OnlyFans, generating donations, endorsements, and brand deals for Longo and Bittner’s sanctuary.

Fred, though younger, was already showing a quirky personality. The couple said they had planned to eventually release him into the wild.

On October 30, 2024, that future ended.

The Raid That Changed Everything

According to the lawsuit, DEC and DOH agents, accompanied by other law enforcement officers, descended on the couple’s Pine City property with a search warrant. Both animals were seized. Hours later, they were dead.

Officials claim P’Nut bit an agent through thick leather gloves during the seizure. That bite, they say, required euthanizing and decapitating both animals for rabies testing. The results later came back negative.

For Longo and Bittner, the explanation didn’t add up. The lawsuit calls the killings “a senseless act of violence” and “an obscene demonstration of government abuse.”

Claims of Constitutional Violations

The Peanut the squirrel lawsuit goes beyond animal rights. It accuses state officials of unlawful detention, unreasonable search and seizure, and exceeding the scope of their warrant.

The plaintiffs allege they were arrested and charged without evidence of criminal activity. They say their requests for the animals’ remains have gone unanswered.

“The acts and omissions of the Defendants were intentional, malicious, and taken with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs,” the complaint reads.

The Law at the Center of the Battle

New York law prohibits keeping squirrels and raccoons as pets, classifying them as wild animals. But the couple insists P’Nut and Fred were exceptions—hand-raised, domesticated, and living entirely indoors.

Their attorney, Nora Constance Marino, argues the law doesn’t account for cases like theirs, where the animals have been integrated into a home and community.

If the court agrees, the case could force a rewrite of wildlife regulations in the state.

National Outrage and Celebrity Voices

The October raid happened just days before the 2024 presidential election, turning it into a political flashpoint. Social media lit up with the hashtag #JusticeForPeanut.

High-profile figures joined in. Elon Musk wrote on X: “Government overreach kidnapped an orphan squirrel and executed him.” Joe Rogan discussed the case on his podcast. Donald Trump Jr. blasted the state at a rally: “If someone has a pet squirrel without a permit, they will go in there and kill the squirrel.”

Even then–vice-presidential nominee JD Vance weighed in, telling supporters: “Don is fired up about P’Nut the squirrel.”

A Pattern of Abuse, They Say

The plaintiffs claim this was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of government overreach. The suit alleges a deliberate disregard for due process and civil rights.

Longo told the New York Post: “This is our opportunity to make change and seek justice for P’Nut and Fred.”

His attorney added: “I hope justice is done, not just for my clients, but for our civil rights, P’Nut and Fred, and all animals.”

The Emotional Toll

Beyond the legal arguments, Longo and Bittner say they’ve suffered “severe emotional distress, humiliation, and damage to reputation.”

They describe P’Nut as a once-in-a-lifetime companion with unique abilities. They say Fred, though younger, was showing signs of being just as special. Losing them, they argue, is like losing family members.

The State’s Defense

The DEC maintains that euthanizing the animals was necessary due to the bite incident. They point to state law requiring rabies testing on any animal that bites a human, regardless of vaccination or domestication status.

Critics argue that the policy is outdated and unnecessarily cruel, especially in cases where the risk is low and the animals are well-known to their owners.

What Happens Next

No trial date has been set for the Peanut the squirrel lawsuit in the Court of Claims, nor for a related case in Chemung County Supreme Court targeting local and state officials.

Legal experts say the outcome could hinge on whether the court accepts the plaintiffs’ argument that P’Nut and Fred were “companion animals” under the law.

If they succeed, it could force state agencies to rethink how they handle similar situations.

A Case That Could Change Animal Law

Animal rights activists are watching closely. Some believe this case could pave the way for more protections for domesticated wildlife. Others see it as a potential landmark in civil rights law, expanding constitutional protections to cover unique human–animal relationships.

For now, Longo and Bittner are left with memories—and a mission. They say they won’t stop until they get justice for P’Nut and Fred, no matter how long it takes.

As Longo put it: “They took something from us that can never be replaced. But if we can stop it from happening to someone else, then maybe some good can come from it.”