[2] 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.
[3][4] 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.
The court held that the ADA did not support his claim and that the exclusion of hogs was rational, refuting his equal protection argument.
[5][4][3] Issue: Kenneth Mayle, acting pro se, sought to challenge Illinois' laws regarding bigamy, fornication, and adultery, citing his religious beliefs.
Furthermore, given Mayle's inability to present a believable threat of being prosecuted under the fornication and adultery statutes, the court dismissed these challenges.
[7][8][9][10] 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.
[11][12][13] 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.
[11][12][13] 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.
Asserting that these laws limited his religious practices, notably "sex magick rituals," and his desire for multiple marriages, his case was once more dismissed by the district court in "Mayle v.
Mayle's appeal was initially hampered by a late submission, but the court exercised discretion and allowed it due to the minimal harm it posed.
They noted that the infrequent enforcement of adultery and fornication laws meant that Mayle's claims of a credible threat were untenable.
Accusing the defendants of Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) violations, the plaintiffs asserted claims such as unauthorized entry into the apartment and conversion of personal property.