Kenneth William Mayle is known for multiple legal challenges. He is also the proud father of a Guinea Hog named Chief Wiggum.
Legal Challenges
MAYLE V. CITY OF CHICAGO (2018) Summary: Kenneth Mayle, the owner of an emotional-support Guinea hog named Chief Wiggum, sued the City of Chicago, contending that the city's restriction barring him from bringing his hog into public places violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Equal Protection Clause. The district and appellate courts dismissed his claims, asserting that only dogs and miniature horses are recognized as "service animals" under ADA regulations.
Background: Mayle's Guinea hog, Chief Wiggum, was trained to assist him with bipolar disorder, providing massage therapy during anxiety attacks and encouraging physical activity. Chicago's ADA regulations recognized only dogs and miniature horses as "service animals," thus excluding hogs. This led Mayle to file a lawsuit against the city.
In the district court, Mayle's arguments were dismissed. The court held that the ADA did not support his claim and that the exclusion of hogs was rational, refuting his equal protection argument.
Subsequent Lawsuit and Appeal: On appeal, Mayle argued the ADA should recognize his hog as a service animal. The appellate court, however, upheld the initial decision. Mayle then argued that the regulation was unconstitutional, pointing out that other laws did not specify service animal species. The court dismissed this, stating the regulation was rational, citing potential disturbances and safety concerns.
Ruling: The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, ruling in favor of the City of Chicago.
Mayle v. Orr (2017) Issue: Kenneth Mayle, acting pro se, sought to challenge Illinois' laws regarding bigamy, fornication, and adultery, citing his religious beliefs.
Ruling: The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division dismissed Mayle's case. The court noted that existing Supreme Court rulings already addressed the bigamy issue, and Mayle did not have standing to challenge the fornication and adultery laws.
Reasoning: Concerning the bigamy law, the court cited established Supreme Court decisions upholding such laws' constitutionality. For the fornication and adultery laws, the court assessed Mayle's standing based on Article III and found that he did not show a credible risk of prosecution due to the rare enforcement of these laws.
Background: Mayle, a Chicago resident following the religious tenets of Satanism and Thelema, claimed potential violations of Illinois' adultery, fornication, and bigamy laws based on his religious practices, which include "sex magic."
Conclusion: The court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the bigamy law, drawing from prior Supreme Court judgments. Furthermore, given Mayle's inability to present a believable threat of being prosecuted under the fornication and adultery statutes, the court dismissed these challenges.
Mayle v. United States et al. (2017) Issue: Representing himself (pro se), Kenneth Mayle challenged the inclusion of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on U.S. currency. He argued that this motto represents a government endorsement of a monotheistic God, clashing with his non-theistic Satanist beliefs.
Ruling: The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confirmed the district court's judgment, dismissing Mayle's case. They held that the motto on currency did not infringe upon the RFRA, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the First Amendment's Free Speech, Free Exercise, or Establishment Clauses.
Reasoning: Under the Establishment Clause, the court utilized the "endorsement" approach, deciding that the motto did not favor a religion but recognized the nation’s religious heritage. For Free Speech, Mayle's claim that using currency forced him to convey a religious message was denied. The court stated that monetary transactions didn't inherently communicate messages. Regarding the Free Exercise and RFRA, the court found no substantial religious burden caused by the motto on the currency.
Background: Identifying with non-theistic Satanism, Kenneth Mayle took issue with the national motto on U.S. currency, seeing it as an opposing religious message. His challenge brought to light debates on religious freedom and the government's religious neutrality.
Conclusion: The Seventh Circuit upheld that "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency was constitutional. This case further defined the bounds of religious symbols in the public domain relative to individual religious and expressive freedoms.