09/11/2026
HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY GOODBYE: Federal judge stops dog’s euthanasia hours before final visit
Austin, Texas - For the past week, many of you have been asking me to look into Major’s case. I have now reviewed the state appellate court ruling, the history of the case and the latest federal court development. There is a lot more to this story than a dog being labeled aggressive after biting someone.
Shane Lilly had reportedly been instructed to arrive at the Austin Animal Center at 9 a.m. Friday for what was expected to be his final visit with Major.
After more than 500 days apart, Lilly was being asked to say goodbye to his three-year-old Belgian Malinois before the City euthanized him.
Then, just hours before that scheduled farewell, a federal judge intervened.
Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra granted a temporary restraining order Thursday afternoon, temporarily blocking the City of Austin from euthanizing Major pending further federal court proceedings.
The judge’s written decision containing further details remains sealed. That means the precise terms of the order and the judge’s reasoning are not yet publicly available.
Major has been held at the Austin Animal Center since March 31st, 2025. That is approximately 530 days.
The case began when Lilly says a white pickup truck struck Major while they were crossing Montopolis Avenue. Major’s back leg was reportedly bleeding. He was yelping, favoring the leg and apparently in significant pain.
Lilly said he could not lift Major and ran to retrieve his phone from the tent where they had been staying.
While Lilly was gone, two women reportedly tried to keep the injured dog out of the street and get him into a vehicle so he could be taken to a veterinarian. One of those women, Julissa Alvarez, was bitten several times on both arms. EMS transported her to the hospital, and one of her wounds required three staples.
Her injuries should not be minimized. But neither should the circumstances surrounding what happened.
Major had reportedly just been struck by a vehicle. He was injured, frightened and in pain when people he did not know attempted to catch and physically move him.
Austin/Travis County Animal Protection seized Major. An Austin Municipal Court judge later determined that Major caused serious bodily injury and ordered him euthanized. A Travis County court reached the same conclusion, and the Texas Third Court of Appeals upheld the order in February.
The Texas Supreme Court declined to take the case, leaving the euthanasia order in place.
During the legal proceedings, City and shelter employees described Major as highly aggressive. An Animal Protection investigator testified that Lilly told her Major had previously bitten people five or six times. Shelter employees said Major required sedation for veterinary treatment and that staff dropped medication and treats into his kennel because of his behavior.
One shelter employee testified that Major was among approximately 10 dogs she had feared during a 26-year career involving tens of thousands of animals.
Lilly offered a different option. He proposed that Major be transferred directly from the shelter to a training facility for professional evaluation, training and rehabilitation. If Major could not be safely rehabilitated, Lilly acknowledged that euthanasia might eventually become necessary. That alternative was rejected.
Major has reportedly remained in an isolated section of the shelter known as Kennel 600. According to the Austin American-Statesman, a guillotine-style divider prevents physical interaction. Major can hear employees cleaning nearby kennels, but he does not walk the shelter’s trails or use the dog park located only yards away.
Austin Animal Services data reportedly show that dogs typically remain under comparable conditions for approximately 30 days.
Major has been there for more than 500.
Lilly represented himself throughout much of the state-court battle but recently retained two attorneys. They filed a federal civil-rights and disability lawsuit Wednesday alleging that Austin officials violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to properly evaluate Major’s role as Lilly’s service animal before pursuing his euthanasia.
According to the lawsuit, Lilly has a traumatic brain injury and seizure disorder. Major is reportedly trained to alert him before seizures, help him maintain his balance, assist him on stairs and open doors. The lawsuit says Major responds to verbal commands, hand signals and cues from an electronic collar.
One day after the lawsuit was filed, Judge Ezra granted the temporary restraining order.
The City of Austin says it will comply with the court’s direction and “continue to provide care for Major until a decision is reached.”
More than 10,000 people have reportedly signed a petition seeking to save Major. Willie Nelson has also weighed in, warning the City that its handling of the case would have a lasting effect on its relationship with the people of Austin.
This is not a story that requires us to ignore the woman who was injured. It requires us to ask whether death is the only safe and proportionate answer for a dog who had reportedly just been struck by a vehicle, reacted while injured and terrified, and has never received the proposed independent professional rehabilitation assessment.
The federal judge’s decision does not permanently overturn the euthanasia order, and it does not mean Major is being released. Based on the information currently available, it temporarily prevents the City from euthanizing him while the federal court considers what happens next.
For now, Major is alive.
For now, Shane Lilly does not have to say goodbye.
But Major remains inside the isolated kennel where he has spent approximately 530 days, and the fight to determine whether he will ever leave it alive is far from over.
If you want to speak up for Major, respectfully contact Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, the Austin City Council and City Manager T.C. Broadnax. Ask City leaders to pursue a lawful resolution that protects the public without euthanizing Major and is consistent with the relief his owner has requested in the pending lawsuit.
Do not contact the judge or attempt to influence the federal court. No threats. No harassment. No interference.
RESOURCES in pinned comment below ↓
SOURCES: Austin American-Statesman; Texas Third Court of Appeals, Shane Lilly v. The State of Texas, Case No. 03-25-00529-CV; Lilly v. City of Austin et al., Verified Original Complaint, Case No. 1:26-cv-02486; Motion for Ex Parte Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; City of Austin.
Fair use.
