California joins growing list of states banning cat declawing

California has joined 6 other states in banning cat declawing for non-medical reasons. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the move faced objections from the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), who argued that veterinarians should retain the ability to perform the procedure, using their professional judgement to decide on case-by-case basis.¹

Assembly Bill No. 867 (AB 867), signed on October 9 by Governor Gavin Newsom, prohibits declawing, tendonectomy, or any type of claw removal on cats, except for therapeutic reasons. Under the law, veterinary professionals who perform any of these procedures for any reason other than for a medical purpose may face fines or have their license or registration revoked, suspended, or denied.²

"Signing AB 867 into law is a win for cats, ethics, science and every advocate who dug in their claws," Danielle Bays, senior program manager of Cat Protection and Policy at Humane World for Animals, said in a state press release3. "California's declaw ban is more than a good law—it's a moral milestone, ending a practice that never belonged in a humane world.”

The primary method for onychectomy, commonly referred to as cat declawing, involves amputating the third phalanx of each cat’s toes. In humans, the procedure would be the equivalent of having the last knuckle removed from every finger.³

The procedure is a controversial one in the veterinary community. Studies have linked the surgery to complications such as infection, pain, hemorrhage, and anesthetic complications.³ Onychectomy is also associated with an increased likelihood of behavioral changes such as biting, aggression, and litterbox avoidance.^3,4 Research has also found that declawed cats are more prone to developing back pain and having residual bone fragments.⁴

According to the AVMA, the CVMA opposed AB 867 throughout the legislative session, arguing that the surgical procedure should remain within veterinarian’s discretion rather than be legislated.¹ The AVMA echoed the importance of professional discretion, writing, “The AVMA also emphasizes the importance of respecting a veterinarian's professional judgment when it comes to performing surgical procedures on individual patients.”¹

The American Animal Hospital Association and the Feline Veterinary Medical Association, formerly the American Association of Feline Practitioners, both oppose elective declawing and advocate for non-surgical alternatives.

Illinois, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have also banned feline declawing. Washington DC; Austin, Texas; Denver; Madison, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh and Allentown, Pennsylvania; and St. Louis, have also banned the procedure.

“AB 867 marks a historic milestone for animal welfare by banning cat declawing,” California Assemblymember Alex Lee said in a state press release.1 “This important legislation shows our commitment to protecting our cat companions. After years of pushing to make this a reality, I’m proud to see California create a more compassionate society for our feline friends by moving away from this inhumane practice.”

References

1. Nolen RS. California latest state to ban cat declawing for nonmedical reasons. America Veterinary Medical Association. October 30, 2025. Accessed October 31, 2025. https://www.avma.org/news/california-latest-state-ban-cat-declawing-nonmedical-reasons?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=todays-headlines-news
2. Assembly Bill 867 (Lee). Veterinary medicine: cat declawing. California Legislature; 2025–2026. Chapter 479. Approved October 9, 2025. Accessed October 31, 2025. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB867.
3. California bans cat declawing. News release. Office of Assemblymember Alex Lee. October 10, 2025. Accessed October 31, 2025. https://a24.asmdc.org/press-releases/20251010-california-bans-cat-declawing
4. Martell-Moran NK, Solano M, Townsend HG. Pain and adverse behavior in declawed cats. J Feline Med Surg. 2018;20(4):280-288. doi:10.1177/1098612X17705044.