All Issue Trackers
Scope
This issue tracker focuses on federal and state legislative actions as well as litigation addressing so-called “undercover investigations” of practices and conduct within animal agriculture. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of legislative actions, but the litigation covered is not exhaustive and focuses on selected issues receiving national attention. This issue tracker covers the period from 1992 to present.
While the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law makes every effort to maintain and update the content furnished in this tracker, no warranty or other guarantee is made regarding the timeliness or accuracy of any information provided. If you spot incorrect or missing information, feel free to contact us.
Federal Legislative Actions
11.27.06 – President George W. Bush signed into law S. 3880, which became Public Law No: 109-374, also known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The law “amend[ed] the federal criminal code to revise criminal prohibitions against damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise to include intentional damage or loss to any real or personal property and intentional threats or serious bodily injury against individuals … who are involved with animal enterprises,” among other things.
8.26.92 – President George H. W. Bush signed into law S. 544, which became Public Law No: 102-346, also known as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992. The law “amend[ed] Federal criminal law to provide a fine or up to one year in prison, or both, for anyone who: (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in such commerce; and (2) intentionally physically disrupts the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of enterprise property, including animals and records (or conspiring to do so), and thereby causes it more than $10,000 of economic damage,” among other things.
Federal Litigation
Arkansas
Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Vaught, et al. [Case closed]
USDC E.D. Arkansas, No. 4:19-cv-442
Eighth Circuit, No. 20-1538
6.25.19 – Four nonprofit organizations—namely the Animal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food Chain Workers Alliance—filed a complaint against Jonathan and DeAnn Vaught and Peco Foods, Inc. The complaint challenges Arkansas Ag-Gag Law, codified under Arkansas Code § 16-118-113, which prohibits undercover investigations of industrial animal agriculture facilities. Plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from enforcing the Ag-Gag Law in a manner that infringes upon their constitutional rights, specifically their rights protected under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
7.19.19 – Defendant Peco Foods, Inc filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In their supporting brief, defendant argued that plaintiffs’ claims do not have a valid legal basis under Ark. Code. Ann. § 16-118-113 and are “unripe” because they are based on hypothetical situations and have not arisen from any actual events.
7.22.19 – Defendants Jonathan and DeAnn Vaught filed a similar motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In their supporting brief, defendants asserted that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is merely speculative in nature and further argued that even if an injury were to be proven, it would not warrant the grating of equitable relief to the plaintiffs. Additionally, defendants highlighted that the constitutional claims made by the plaintiffs are specifically applicable to state actors and do not extend to private individuals like themselves.
2.14.20 – The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of defendants, granting their individual motions to dismiss the case. The court determined that plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing and dismissed the case without prejudice. The U.S. District Court did not address the issue of failure to state a claim or ripeness.
3.12.20 – Plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court’s decision to dismiss the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
8.9.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued an opinion reversing the district court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. The court recognized that plaintiffs have standing to sue under Article III and upheld their constitution rights to freedom of speech. It concluded that plaintiffs’ planned investigations in certain facilities and their use of information for advocacy are protected activities. Additionally, the court determined that plaintiffs face a credible threat of enforcement, pointing out that a specific threat is not necessary to establish a reasonable fear of enforcement.
8.20.21 – Appellees Peco Foods, Inc. and DeAnn and Jonathan Vaught filed petitions for rehearing en banc.
9.15.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court denied Appellees’ petitions for rehearing en banc.
9.22.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate.
11.19.21 – Defendant Peco Foods, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, asserting that plaintiffs failed to plead a valid cause of action for a pre-enforcement constitutional challenge to Ark. Code. Ann. 16-118-113. Defendants argued that, because they are a private party and not a state actor, they are not subject to constitutional claims of this nature.
3.31.23 – The U.S. District Court granted Defendant Peco Foods, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Although the court affirmed plaintiffs’ standing to pursue the claim, it recognized that defendant, being a private party, cannot be held liable based on a preemptive constitutional claim. In addition, the court determined that defendants did not make any attempts to enforce the statute in question. As a result, plaintiffs were unable to establish a valid claim. The court dismissed the case without prejudice.
Iowa
Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al.
USDC S.D. Iowa, No. 4:21-cv-231 [Case open]
Eighth Circuit, No. 22-3464 [Case closed]
8.10.21 – Five non-profit organizations – Animal Legal Defense Fund, PETA, Bailing Out Benji, Food & Water Watch, and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement – filed a complaint against the state of Iowa, challenging their more recent Ag-Gag law codified at Iowa Code § 727.8A. The law makes it illegal to place or use a camera or any other electronic surveillance device to obtain images or data of the conduct at agricultural production facility. Plaintiffs argued that recording is a form of speech protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and request a court declaration that Iowa Code § 727.8A is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also sought an injunction against its enforcement.
9.26.22 – The U.S. District Court issued a decision denying the state of Iowa’s motion to dismiss and granting Plaintiff Animal Legal Defense Fund’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that Iowa’s fourth iteration of a so-called “ag-gag” law (enacted in April 2021 as HF 775 and codified at Iowa Code § 727.8A) violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Iowa’s most recent law made it a criminal offense to place or use a camera or “electronic surveillance device” while committing trespass in an agricultural production facility. Iowa’s previous three iterations of “ag-gag” laws were also previously ruled unconstitutional in whole or in part.
10.8.21 – Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging that Plaintiffs lack subject-matter jurisdiction and that their claims are not ripe.
11.12.21 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Iowa Code § 727.8A is “unconstitutional and unenforceable because it fails First Amendment scrutiny and is overbroad.” In addition, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against Defendants aimed at preventing them from enforcing Iowa Code § 727.8A, in the event the court deny summary judgment.
10.25.22 – The U.S. District Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al.
11.22.22 – Defendants Iowa Governor Kimberley K. Reynolds et al. filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit against the district court’s Sep. 26, 2022, order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
2.9.23 – Appellants Iowa Governor Reynolds et al. filed their brief accompanied by an addendum, asking the court to dismiss the complaint filed against them. They argued that appellees have failed to present any substantial factual issues and lack the legal standing to pursue their pre-enforcement claims. On the merits of the case, appellants contended that the statute does not regulate speech protected by the First Amendment and that the statute has been sufficiently tailored to serve the legitimate interest of protecting property; thus meeting the standard of intermediate scrutiny.
4.12.23 – Appellees Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. submitted their brief, arguing that the Iowa statute’s wide-ranging prohibition on recording activities within agricultural facilities is overly broad and fails to establish a clear connection to the state’s interest in restricting speech.
The case was argued on September 20, 2023.
1.8.24 – The Eighth Circuit Court affirmed in part the district court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. In its standing analysis, the court considered the statute’s “Place” and “Use” provisions separately. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the provision that prohibited knowingly using recording devices while trespassing but not the provisions that prohibited placing these devices on trespassed property. The court determined that “[b]ecause the Act’s restrictions on the use of a camera only apply to situations when there has first been an unlawful trespass, the Act does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the State’s legitimate interests.” Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that the statute was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” but the court disagreed and held that the statute was narrowly tailored to serve the “State’s interest in stymieing surveillance-trespass.” The court noted, “Indeed, our court has upheld government restrictions on videotaping even when the public has a general right to access the venue or event to be recorded … so it follows that the State’s interests in preventing recording are even stronger when the public has no right to access the venue in the first place.” The court further stated, “Without a doubt, trespassing is a legally cognizable injury because it harms the privacy and property interests of property owners and other lawfully present persons. Trespassers exacerbate that harm when they use a camera while committing their crime. The Act is tailored to target that harm and redress that evil.” The Eighth Circuit Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
1.29.24 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate.
4.3.24 – The plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund, Bailing Out Benji, and Food & Water Watch along with the defendants filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice.
4.10.24 – The court dismissed the claims brought by plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund, Bailing Out Benji, and Food & Water Watch with prejudice.
4.22.24 – The remaining plaintiffs and the defendants filed a joint status report outlining agreed facts and proposing a briefing schedule.
Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Iowa, No. 4:19-cv-124
Eighth Circuit, No. 22-1830
4.22.19 – Five non-profit organizations – the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Bailing Out Benji, PETA, and Center for Food Safety – filed a legal action against the state of Iowa, challenging the constitutionality of Iowa’s Ag-Gag law, codified in Iowa Code § 717A.3B. Adopted in Mar. 2019, Iowa Ag-Gag law creates a misdemeanor criminal offense of agricultural production facility trespass, including undercover investigations. Plaintiffs alleged that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
6.21.19 – Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, seeking a court order dismissing in its entirety Plaintiffs’ claims.
7.19.19 – Plaintiffs filed a cross motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the state from enforcing Iowa Code § 717A.3B.
12.2.19 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing Iowa Code § 717A.3B. In addition, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ third cause of action, alleging that § 717A.3B is void under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is vague.
3.16.20 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a brief in support of the motion, seeking judgment in their favor.
4.27.20 – Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, along with a brief in support of the motion, seeking a court order upholding § 717A.3B and lifting the preliminary injunction.
3.14.22 – The U.S. District Court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
3.28.22 – The U.S. District Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, declaring Iowa Code § 717A.3B “facially unconstitutional” and in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court also permanently enjoined Defendants from enforcing Iowa Code § 717A.3B.
4.20.22 – Defendants Kimberley K. Reynolds, et al. filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit against the court’s Dec. 2, 2019 Order, Mar. 14, 2022 order and Mar. 28, 2022 order.
6.1.22 – Appellants Kimberley K. Reynolds, et al., filed a brief, arguing that “the District Court erroneously concluded that Iowa Code section 717A.3B discriminates based upon viewpoint and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny.” Appellants declared that section 717A.3B is a “viewpoint neutral regulation of false, unprotected speech,” which falls outside the protections of the First Amendment.
8.9.22 – Appellees Animal Legal Defense Fund et al., filed their brief, asking the Eighth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision. Appellees wrote, “[t]he State did not overcome the presumption of invalidity because the law does not advance a compelling state interest and it is not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means available.”
The case was argued on September 20, 2023.
1.8.24 – The Eighth Circuit Court reversed the district court’s judgment, vacated the injunction against Iowa’s Agricultural Production Facility Trespass law (Iowa Code § 717A.3B), and remanded the case for further proceedings. The law criminalizes individuals who “uses deception” to secure access or employment at an agricultural production facility with the intent to cause physical, economic, or operational harm to the facility. The court determined that the “intent” provision of the law serves to regulate conduct, and, as such, does not constitute a “viewpoint-based restriction on speech, but rather permissible restriction on intentionally false speech undertaken to accomplish a legally cognizable harm.” The court noted that “[i]f a person uses deception to gain employment with the intent to harm a facility, the offender would be liable for deceptively praising the facility (‘I love the work you do, and I want to support it!’) or deceptively criticizing the facility (‘This facility is poorly managed, and I will help increase profits.’). The court stated, “The statute does not prefer laudatory lies over critical falsehoods.”
1.29.24 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate.
3.11.24 – The parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice.
3.18.24 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al.
USDC S.D. Iowa, No. 4:17-cv-362 [Case reopened]
Eighth Circuit, No. 19-1364 [Case closed]
10.10.17 – Five non-profit organizations—namely the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Bailing Out Benji, PETA, and Center for Food Safety—filed a complaint against the state of Iowa. The complaint challenges the constitutionality of Iowa’s Ag-Gag Law, specifically Iowa Code § 717A.3A, enacted in 2012. This law criminalizes undercover investigations conducted at agricultural production facilities. Plaintiffs argued that the law infringes upon their rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
6.22.18 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a supporting brief in support of the motion.
7.13.18 – Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, along with a supporting brief in support of the motion.
1.9.19 – The U.S. District Court issued an order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The court determined that Iowa Code § 717A.3A is in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
1.30.19 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of Iowa Code § 717A.3A.
2.14.19 – The U.S. District Court declared Iowa Code § 717A.3A as facially unconstitutional. Additionally, the court granted a permanent injunction, thereby prohibiting the enforcement of the provisions outlined in Iowa Code § 717A.3A.
2.20.19 – Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, seeking to challenge the U.S. District Court’s orders issued on January 9, 2019, and February 14, 2019.
8.13.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued an amended opinion partially affirming the U.S. District Court’s decision to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment regarding Iowa Code § 717A.3A(1)(b). The court, however, partially reversed the U.S. District Court’s judgment, which declared § 717A.3A(1)(a) unconstitutional. Additionally, the court vacated the injunction against the enforcement of § 717A.3A(1)(a), (2) and (3) and remanded the case for further proceedings.
9.30.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate.
12.9.21 – The U.S. District Court called for supplemental briefing to assess the potential influence of both the Eighth Circuit Court’s opinion in this case and Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kelly, 9 F.4th 1219 (10th Cir. 2021), on the relevant issues of the present case.
2.18.22 – Defendants filed their brief, arguing that Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kelly holds limited relevance to the current case. They further asserted that the Iowa statute is viewpoint-neutral and does not suffer from overbreadth.
3.4.22 – Plaintiffs submitted their brief, asserting that the Iowa statute infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of speech. They argue that the Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kelly case is pertinent and supportive of their claim. Additionally, plaintiffs pointed out that the statute imposes restrictions on both truthful and untruthful speech only when it becomes public, effectively granting the state the authority to restrict speech solely based solely on its disapproval of the resulting consequences.
3.9.24 – The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Idaho
Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Wasden [Case closed]
USDC Idaho, No. 1:14-cv-104
Ninth Circuit, No. 15-35960
3.17.14 – A coalition of eleven non-profit organizations—namely the Animal Legal Defense Fund, PETA, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Center for Food Safety, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment, Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research & Education, and Farm Forward—filed a complaint against the state of Idaho. They alleged that Idaho Ag-Gag Law, enacted in 2014 and codified in Idaho Code § 18-7042 is unconstitutional. This law specifically criminalizes undercover investigations and videography conducted at agricultural production facilities. Plaintiffs argued that the law violates multiple constitutional provisions, including the First Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
11.18.14 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their First Amendment and Equal Protection claims.
8.3.15 – The U.S. District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The court determined that Idaho Code § 18-7042 violates both the First Amendment right to free speech and the Equal Protection Clause. The court’s rational was rooted in the finding that the law was substantially motivated by animosity towards animal welfare groups and that it infringes upon the fundamental right to free speech.
11.25.15 – The U.S. District Court declared Idaho Code § 18-7042(1)(a) through (d) unconstitutional and in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the U.S. District Court permanently enjoined enforcement of these provisions.
12.10.15 – Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to challenge the U.S. District Court’s final judgment issued on November 25, 2015.
1.4.18 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion in which it affirmed the U.S. District Court’s grant of summary judgment concerning §§ 18-7042(1)(a) and (d) while reversing the grant of summary judgment with regards to §§ 18-7042(1)(b) and (c). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit Court partially vacated the U.S. District Court’s order that had permanently enjoined the enforcement of Idaho Code § 18-7042.
1.26.18 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued mandate.
2.20.18 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for declaratory judgment, seeking clarification that the statute does not apply to undercover investigations. Alternatively, plaintiffs request a declaration that Idaho Code § 18-7042(1)(c) is unconstitutional when applied to undercover investigations.
5.8.18 – The U.S. District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment.
12.4.18 – The U.S. District Court issued an amended final judgment and permanent injunction, ruling unconstitutional Idaho Code § 18-7042(1)(a) to the extent that it prohibits individuals who are not employed by an agricultural production facility from entering the facility by misrepresentation. The court declared § 18-7042(1)(d) unconstitutional as well. Consequently, the court issued a permanent injunction preventing the enforcement of both provisions.
Kansas
Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Kelly, et al. [Case closed]
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 21-760
Tenth Circuit, No. 20-3082
USDC Kansas, No. 2:18-cv-2657
12.4.18 – Four non-profit organizations – Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Food Safety, Shy 38, Inc., and Hope Sanctuary filed a complaint against the state of Kansas seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act, Kan. Stat. §§ 47-1825 et seq. – the so-called Ag-Gag statute – is unconstitutional. Enacted in 1990, the Kansas statute criminalizes various activities done during undercover investigations of alleged mistreatment of animals at agricultural production facilities. Plaintiffs alleged that the purpose of this statute is to “suppress” a substantial amount of protected speech covered by the First Amendment, including undercover investigations as a form of protected speech.
7.25.19 – Defendants – the Governor and Attorney General of Kansas – filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a memorandum in support of the motion, for an order entering judgment against all of plaintiffs’ claims.
9.16.19 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a memorandum in support of the motion, asking the court to enter a judgment in their favor on all their claims and enjoin enforcement of Kans. Stat. § 47-1825 – 47-1828.
1.22.20 – The U.S. District Court issued an order sustaining in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Kan. Stat. § 47-1827(a) and $ 47-1828, and sustaining in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Plaintiffs have standing to challenge Kan. Stat. $ 47-1827(b), (c), and (d) and that the statute violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
4.3.20 – The U.S. District Court entered an order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of KSA § 41827(b), (c), and (d), that were previously declared unconstitutional.
5.1.20 – Defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit the district court’s Jan. 22, 2020, judgment and order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as well as the district court’s Apr. 3, 2020, order granting permanent injunction.
8.19.21 – The Tenth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming the district court’s judgment that provisions of the Kansas Ag-Gag Statute §§ 47-1827(b), (c), and (d) violate the First Amendment. The court also affirmed the district court’s injunction barring enforcement of those provisions.
11.17.21 – Kansas Governor Laura Kelly and Kansas Attorney General Dereck Schmidt filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s Aug. 2021 decision that: (1) portions of the Kansas Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act (Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 47-1825-47-1828) violate First Amendment free speech protections; and (2) Kansas is prohibited from enforcing § 47-187(b), (c), and (d) of the Act. Kansas argues that the dissenting opinion correctly found that the statute does not criminalize constitutionally protected speech and that false statements made to successfully gain access to a property and commit trespassing create a legally cognizable harm and are unprotected speech. Kansas additionally argues that the statute is viewpoint neutral, because the “Act applies regardless of whether the deceptive speech is critical or laudatory of the animal facility.”
4.25.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied Petitioners Kansas Governor Laura Kelly and Attorney General Dereck Schmidt’s petition for writ of certiorari.
North Carolina
PETA, et al. v. Stein (formerly Cooper), et al. [Case closed]
USDC M.D. North Carolina, No. 1:16-cv-25
Fourth Circuit, No. 20-1776
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-1148; No. 22-1150
1.13.16 – Six non-profit organizations—namely PETA, Center for Food Safety, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, and Government Accountability Project—filed a complaint against the state of North Carolina, challenging the constitutionality of the North Carolina Property Protection Act, codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2. This law criminalizes conduct that exceeds authorized access to nonpublic areas, including the installation of electronic devices for recording images or data. Plaintiffs argued that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I, sections 12, 14 and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. They request the court to declare the law unconstitutional and to issue an injunction restraining the state from enforcing its provisions.
2.25.16 – Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
9.3.19 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a supporting memorandum, seeking a court order declaring § 99A-2(b)(1)-(3) unconstitutional and restraining the state from enforcing these specific provisions. Simultaneously, defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a supporting memorandum, urging the court to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
6.12.20 – The U.S. District Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The court invalidated and struck down the provisions of § 99A-2(b)(1)-(3). Furthermore, the court prohibited the state from enforcing these particular provisions.
7.10.20 – The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., acting as an Intervenor-Defendant, filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in response to the U.S. District Court’s decision on June 12, 2020.
7.13.20 – Defendants also filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit seeking to challenge the U.S. District Court’s decision issued on June 12, 2020.
7.23.20 – Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging the U.S. District Court’s decision issued on June 12, 2020.
8.4.20 – The Fourth Circuit Court ordered the consolidation of the three appeals under docket No. 20-1776.
8.7.20 – Appellees and Cross-Appellants filed a motion to dismiss Intervenor-Defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
12.23.20 – Appellants North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, et al. filed an opening brief with the Fourth Circuit Court, urging the court to reverse the U.S. District Court’s decision. They argued that the court made an error in subjecting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2 to First Amendment scrutiny. Furthermore, even if such scrutiny applies, they contended that the court erred in finding § 99A-2 unconstitutional as it is content-neutral. unconstitutional as it is content neutral.
2.22.21 – Appellees PETA, et al. filed their brief, reaffirming their stance that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2 imposes restrictions on First Amendment activities and should therefore be subject to First Amendment scrutiny.
2.23.23 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit published an opinion partially affirming and partially reversing the North Carolina Property Protection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2. The court concluded that activities related to newsgathering, including capturing videos or recordings, in both public and private farm spaces are protected under the First Amendments.
3.17.23 – The Fourth Circuit Court issued mandate.
5.24.23 – Petitioners North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein et al. filed a petition for writ of certiorari (No. 22-1150), highlighting the existence of a circuit split concerning the application of the First Amendment to unauthorized recordings in nonpublic areas. Additionally, petitioners argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision overlooks the common-law tort framework established by the statute. Petitioners asserted that this framework should shield the statute from heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment.
5.26.23 – Petitioner the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 22-1148), criticizing the Fourth Circuit Court for creating a circuit split on First Amendment protections in nonpublic areas. Petitioner argued that it is essential for the Supreme Court to provide clarification on the issue, asserting that prohibitions on unauthorized speech in nonpublic areas should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as similar speech in public areas.
8.9.23 – Respondents PETA et al. submitted a brief opposing the petitions for writs of certiorari in both cases (No. 22-1150 and 22-1148). Respondents argued that, in line with the Fourth Circuit’s decision, NC Statute § 99-A unconstitutionally targeted whistleblowers for punishment. Respondents pointed out that the core issue in this case is that the statute goes beyond authorizing property owners to penalize non-expressive conduct; it imposes sanctions triggered by speech. Therefore, following Supreme Court precedent, the Fourth Circuit required that the law pass First Amendment scrutiny before being applied to speech. Since the law failed this scrutiny when applied to the respondents, it cannot be used against their actions. Additionally, respondents argued that the petitioners’ attempts to escalate this case to the Supreme Court lack merit because there is no conflict among the lower courts and all the cited legal precedents support protecting the respondents’ recordings and subjecting $ 99A-2’s speech restrictions to strict First Amendment scrutiny, which the petitioners do not contest.
8.23.23 – Petitioners Josh Stein et al. filed a reply brief in case docket no. 22-1150. Petitioners argued that the respondents’ claim that the lower courts agree on the issues contradicts the Fourth Circuit’s own acknowledgment of a circuit conflict. Respondents argued that the Supreme Court would need to make a “new exception to the First Amendment” to support the statute, which petitioners dispute. The Supreme Court has never held that trespassers have full freedom of speech on private property. Instead, property owners have the right to limit speech on their property. Thus, states can allow employers to sue employees who steal documents or secretly record at work, even if the employees are trying to reveal wrongdoing.
8.23.23 – Petitioner the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. filed a reply brief in case docket no. 22-1148. The petitioner argued that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling improperly prioritized speech rights over property rights and that this case presents an opportunity for the Court to clarify how property rights and the First Amendment interact.
10.16.23 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied granting writs of certiorari in both dockets. The Fourth Circuit Court’s opinion, which held that recording audio or video in non-public farm areas is a protected newsgathering activity under the First Amendment, now remains law.
Utah
Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Herbert, et al. [Case closed]
USDC Utah, No. 2:13-cv-679
7.22.13 – A coalition of three non-profit organizations—namely the Animal Legal Defense Fund, PETA, and Counterpunch—and individuals filed a complaint against the state of Utah, raising concerns about the constitutionality of Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112. This statute establishes the offense of agricultural operation interference, effectively criminalizing undercover investigations in the context of agricultural operations. Plaintiffs argued that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and sought a permanent injunction, restraining the state from enforcing the law.
5.31.16 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment along with a supporting memorandum, urging the court to declare the law unconstitutional and thereby invalidate it.
6.3.16 – Defendants filed a sealed motion for summary judgment.
7.7.17 – The U.S. District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and issued a final judgment, finding Utah Code § 76-6-112 in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Wyoming
Western Watershed Project, et al. v. Attorney General, et al. [Case closed]
USDC Wyoming, No. 2:15-cv-169
9.29.15 – Five non-profit organizations—namely the Western Watersheds Project, National Press Photographers Association, Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., PETA, and Center for Food Safety—filed a complaint against the state of Wyoming. They alleged that the Wyoming Data Censorship Statutes, which make it a criminal offense to trespass for the purpose of unlawfully collecting resource data, are in violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the statutes are invalid and an injunction to prevent their enforcement.
5.30.18 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a supporting memorandum. They sought a ruling declaring subsections (c) of the Data Censorship Statutes unconstitutional. Alternatively, they requested that subsections (c) not be applicable to plaintiffs’ collection of resource data on public land. Simultaneously, Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a supportive memorandum, advocating for a judgment in their favor.
10.29.18 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that subsections (c) of the Wyoming Data Censorship Statutes are facially unconstitutional. As a result, the court entered a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs.
State Legislative Actions
Alabama
Adopted on April 26, 2002, the Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act (SB 271) makes it unlawful for anyone to enter an animal facility under false pretense for the purpose of obtaining records or data by theft or deception or releasing animals without the consent of the owner.
Ala. Code § 13A-11-150 et seq.
Arkansas
Adopted on March 23, 2017, Act 606, An Act to create a cause of action for unauthorized access to another person’s property (HB 1665) prohibits anyone from unlawfully entering a commercial property, including agricultural production operations, with the intent to access records, data, or record activities on the premises.
Ark. Code § 16-118-113.
Idaho
Adopted on February 28, 2014, Section 18-7042 (SB 1337) makes it unlawful to interfere with agricultural operation activities, including deceptive trespassing onto agricultural premises, or obtaining employment for the purpose of recording audio or video of activities at these sites. This law provides that anyone found guilty of interfering with agricultural production activities will face a misdemeanor charge. Penalties may include a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.
Idaho Code § 18-7042.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho declared Idaho Code § 18-7042 unconstitutional in Nov. 2015. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling in January 2018; Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Wasden, No. 15-35960.
Iowa
Adopted on March 2, 2012, Section 717A.3A (HF 589) establishes a criminal offense for fraudulent entry into agricultural operation facilities or obtaining employment with the intent of committing agricultural production facility fraud. Anyone found guilty of agricultural production facility fraud will face a serious misdemeanor charge.
Iowa Code § 717A.3A.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled Idaho Code § 717A.3A unconstitutional in Feb. 2019. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in August 2021; Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al., No. 19-1364.
Adopted on March 14, 2019, Section 717A.3B (SF 519) criminalizes trespassing on agricultural production facilities. This law establishes a misdemeanor offense for agricultural production facility trespass, including undercover investigations.
Iowa Code § 717A.3B
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa declared Iowa Code § 717A.3B unconstitutional in March 2022. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and vacated the injunction against Iowa Code § 717A.3B; Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al., No. 22-1830.
Adopted on June 10, 2020, Section 716.7A (SF 2413) criminalizes food operation trespass. Anyone found guilty of committing food operation trespass will face an aggravated misdemeanor charge.
Iowa Code § 716.7A
Adopted on April 30, 2021, Section 727.8A (HF 775) prohibits trespassing for the purpose of placing or using a camera or any other electronic surveillance device to capture images or data of activities at agricultural production facilities.
Iowa Code § 727.8A
Kansas
In 1990, Kansas became the first state to adopt an “ag-gag” law. The Kansas Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act makes it a crime to trespass on an animal facility with the intent to damage the property. This includes entering the facility to take pictures or videos without permission.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled the Kansas ag-gag law unconstitutional in January 2020. The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in August 2021; Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Kelly, et al., No. 20-3082.
Kentucky
Passed on April 12, 2024, Section 511.100 (SB 16) expands the definition of critical infrastructure in the state, including facilities involved in commercial food production and animal feeding operations. Any unauthorized monitoring of these facilities, via drone or other means, would be classified as a criminal misdemeanor.
On April 9, 2024, the Governor vetoed SB 16; however, on April 12, 2024, the Kentucky legislature overrode the veto.
Missouri
Adopted on July 9, 2012, Section 578.013 (SB 631) requires any farm animal professional who obtained recordings of animal abuse or neglect to turn them over to law enforcement authorities within 24 hours of the recording. The recordings must remain unaltered. Anyone failing to comply with this requirement will face a Class A misdemeanor.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.013
Adopted on May 13, 2014, Section 578.405 (SB 491) makes it a crime to either obtain access to an animal facility under false pretenses or enter an animal facility for the purpose of obtaining unauthorized possession of records or data. This law became effective on January 1, 2017.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.405
Adopted on June 10, 2021, Section 261.099 (HB 574) makes it illegal to inspect animal facilities and provides that testimony or evidence about any condition or event at the facility should be ruled inadmissible.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 261.099
North Carolina
In 2015, the North Carolina legislature passed Session Law 2015-50, which made it illegal for anyone to access nonpublic areas and engage in activities that exceeds the scope of authorized access to property, including placing unattended cameras or electronic surveillance devices on an employer’s premises for recording images or data.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina declared N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2(b)(1)-(3) unconstitutional in Jun. 2020 (PETA, et al. v. Stein, No. 1:16-cv-25). The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision in Feb. 2023, acknowledging that the challenged provisions infringe upon constitutionally protected newsgathering rights. In October 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that recording audio or video in nonpublic farm areas is a protected newsgathering activity under the First Amendment; PETA, et al. v. Stein, et al., Nos. 22-1148, 22-1150.
North Dakota
In 1991, North Dakota enacted the Animal Research Facility Damage Act, which prohibits unauthorized individuals from entering an animal research facility and using any recording equipment. Anyone violating this law will face a Class B misdemeanor charge.
Texas
Adopted on June 15, 2017, Section 423.009 (HB 1643) makes it unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft above concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for the purpose of taking pictures.
Texas Code § 423.009
Adopted on June 18, 2021, Chapter 252 (HB 1480) provides that anyone who intentionally releases, steals, destroys, or causes the loss of an animal or crop from a facility without the owner’s consent, damages property, breaks into a facility to tamper with records or equipment, or enters with unlawful intent, will face criminal charges.
Texas Code § 252.001 to 252.004
Utah
Adopted on March 20, 2012, Section 76-6-112 (HB 187) creates the offense of agricultural operation interference. Anyone who knowingly or intentionally records images or sounds from an agricultural operation without the owner’s consent will be charged with a misdemeanor.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah held Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112 unconstitutional in July 2017 (Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Herbert, et al., No. 2:13-cv-679).
Wyoming
Wyoming enacted two laws known as the Data Censorship statutes in 2015 and 2016. These laws established offenses related to trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawful collection of resource data.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming declared in October 2018 Wyo. Stat. §§ 6-3-414(c) and 40-27-101(c) unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Western Watersheds Project, et al. v. Attorney General, et al., No. 2:15-cv-169.
