The United States District Court for the District of Nevada Tuesday held that a county’s conditional permit regulations for housing exotic animals did not violate the US Constitution.

Karl and Kayla Mitchell sued Nye County, Nevada, claiming that the conditions on their exotic animal permits were unconstitutional conditions and constituted a taking of property. The county argued that no resident has a right to own tigers without regulation. The court agreed with the county and stated that “[t]here is no constitutional right to the unregulated ownership of exotic animals.” Thus, the county’s conditions were fair.

Next, the court looked at the unconstitutional takings claim. The court stated the permit regulations did not cause a substantial diminution in the value of the Mitchell’s property. Furthermore, the permits “promote the common good by regulating the ownership of exotic and potentially dangerous animals.”

The Mitchells applied for exotic animal permits to keep their alleged “emotional support” tigers at home. They own and operate Big Cat Encounters, a non-profit tiger enclosure located just outside of Las Vegas. Nye County granted the permits with special conditions: the Mitchells cannot house more than 10 tigers; they must cage the tigers during filming or when visitors are on the property; and they cannot travel with the tigers, unless they go to the veterinarian and give the county advance notice.