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 the 1990s 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 and 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 | Iowa | Kansas | North Carolina | Utah | Wyoming

The language used in this section is derived from the relevant state statutes. 

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 Equity, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food Chain Workers Alliance—filed a complaint against Jonathan and DeAnn Vaught and Peco Foods, Inc. The suit challenged Arkansas’ Ag-Gag Law (§ 16-118-113), which prohibits undercover investigations of industrial animal agriculture facilities. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the law violates their First Amendment and Equal Protection Rights.

  • Defendants Peco Foods, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, along with a supporting brief (7.19.19)
  • Defendants Jonathan and DeAnn Vaught filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, along with a supporting brief (7.22.19)

2.14.20 – The federal district court ruled in favor of defendants, granting their motions to dismiss the case. The district court determined that plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing and dismissed the case without prejudice. It did not address the issue of failure to state a claim.

  • Plaintiffs filed a motion to appeal the federal district court’s decision to dismiss the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Court (3.12.20)

8.9.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued an opinion reversing the district court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. The circuit 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.

  • Defendants-appellees Peco Foods, Inc. and DeAnn and Jonathan Vaught filed petitions for rehearing en banc (8.20.21)
  • The Eighth Circuit Court denied appellees’ petitions for rehearing en banc (9.15.21)
  • The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate (9.22.21)
  • Defendant Peco Foods, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint (11.19.21)

3.31.23 – The federal district court issued a judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice. The district court granted defendant Peco Foods, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Although the court affirmed plaintiffs’ standing to purshe the claim, it recognized that defendant, being a private party, cannot be held liable based on a preemptive constitutional claim. Additionally, 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.

Iowa

Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Iowa, No. 4:21-cv-231
Eighth Circuit, No. 22-3464

8.10.21 – Five nonprofit organizations—namely the 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 its latest Ag-Gag law (Iowa Code § 727.8A). The plaintiffs argued that recording constitutes speech protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They sought a court declaration that Iowa Code § 727.8A is unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent its enforcement.

  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (11.12.21)

9.26.22 – The federal district court denied Iowa’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The district court ruled that Iowa’s fourth iteration of an Ag-Gag law violated the First Amendment. Iowa’s three prior versions of Ag-Gag laws had also been deemed unconstitutional, either in whole or in part.

  • Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case (10.8.21)
  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (11.12.21)

10.25.22 – The federal district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

  • Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit Court against the district court’s judgment (11.22.22)
  • Defendants-appellants filed their opening brief along with an addendum (2.9.23)
  • Plaintiffs-appellees filed their response brief (4.12.23)

1.8.24 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued a decision partially affirming and partially reversing the district court’s rulings, upholding the denial of the state’s motion to dismiss but overturning the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs. In its analysis, the court addressed the statute’s “Place” and “Use” provisions separately. It founds that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the prohibition on using recording devices while trespassing but not the prohibition on placing such 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’ claim that the statute was “unconstitutionally overbroad” was rejected, with the court holding that it was narrowly tailored to protect the state’s interest in preventing surveillance trespass. The court emphasized that trespassing is a “legally cognizable injury” that harms privacy and property rights, further aggravated when cameras are used during the trespass. It concluded that the Act appropriately addresses this harm. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

  • The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate (1.29.24)
  • Plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund, Bailing Out Benji, and Food & Water Watch along with defendants filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice (4.3.24)

4.10.24 – The federal district court dismissed the claims brought by plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund, Bailing Out Benji, and Food & Water Watch with prejudice. 

  • Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (6.14.24)
  • Plaintiffs Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI) and PETA filed a motion for summary judgment seeking as-applied relief (8.16.24)

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 nonprofit organizations—namely the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Bailing Out of Benji, and Center for Food Safety—filed a complaint against the state of Iowa, challenging the constitutionality of Iowa’s Ag-Gag law (§ 717A.3B) adopted in 2019. The plaintiffs alleged the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

  • Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (6.21.19)
  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction (7.19.19)

12.2.19 – The federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing Iowa Code § 717A.3B.

  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment along with a supporting memorandum (3.16.20)
  • Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment along with a supporting memorandum (4.27.20)
  • The federal district court issued an order denying defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (3.14.22)

3.28.22 – The federal 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.

  • Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Court against the district court’s decision (4.20.22)
  • Defendants-appellants filed an opening brief (6.1.22)
  • Plaintiffs-appellees filed a response brief (8.9.22)

1.8.24 – The Eighth Circuit Court reversed the district court’s ruling, vacated the injunction against Iowa’s Agricultural Production Facility Trespass Law (Iowa Code § 717A.3B), and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court determined that the law’s “intent” provision regulates conduct rather than imposing a viewpoint-based restriction on speech. It characterized the provision as a “permissible restriction on intentionally false speech” intended to cause legally cognizable harm. The court explained 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.”

  • The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate (1.29.24)
  • The parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice (3.11.24)

3.18.24 – The federal district court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Iowa, No. 4:17-cv-362
Eighth Circuit, No. 19-1364

10.10.17 – Five nonprofit 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, challenging the constitutionality of Iowa’s Ag-Gag law (Iowa Code § 717A.3A) enacted in 2012. Plaintiffs argued that the law infringes upon their rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

1.9.19 – The federal district court issued an order denying defendants’ cross-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.

  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of Iowa Code § 717A.3A (1.30.19)

2.14.19 – The federal 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.

  • Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2.20.19)

8.13.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued an amended opinion partially affirming the district court’s decision to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment concerning Iowa Code § 717A.3A(1)(b). However, the court partially reversed the court’s ruling that § 717A.3A(1)(a) was unconstitutional. It also vacated the injunction against the enforcement of §§ 717A.3A(1)(a), (2), and (3) and remanded the case for further proceedings.

  • The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate (9.30.21)
  • The Eighth Circuit Court requested supplemental briefing to evaluate the potential influence of its opinion in this case, as well the decision in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kelly, 9 F.4th 1219 (10th 2021), on the relevant issues of the present case (8.13.21)
  • Defendants filed an opening brief (2.18.22)
  • Plaintiffs filed a response brief (3.4.22)
  • The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice (3.9.24)

4.17.24 – The federal district court dismissed 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 nonprofit organization filed a complaint against the state of Idaho, alleging that Idaho Code § 18-7042 is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argued that the law violates multiple constitutional provisions, including the First Amendent, the Supremacy Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment (11.18.14)
  • The federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (8.3.15)

11.25.15 – The federal 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 court permanently enjoined enforcement of these provisions.

  • Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (12.10.15)

1.4.18 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming the 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 district court’s order that had permanently enjoined the enforcement of Idaho Code § 18-7042.

  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for declaratory judgment seeking clarification that the statute does not apply to undercover investigations (2.20.18)
  • The federal district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment (5.8.18)

12.4.18 – The federal 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]
USDC Kansas, No. 2:18-cv-2657
Tenth Circuit, No. 20-3082
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 21-760

12.4.18 – Four nonprofit organizations—namely the 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., is unconstitutional.

1.22.20 – The federal district court issued an order granting in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Kan. Stat. § 47-1827(a) and § 47-1828, and granting 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 violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

4.3.20 – The federal district court entered an order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of Kan. Stat. §§ 47-1827(b), (c), and (d).

  • Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (5.1.20)

8.19.21 – The Tenth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming the district court’s judgment that Kan. Stat. §§ 47-1827(b), (c), and (d) violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The appellate 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 Tenth Circuit Court’s decision.

4.25.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied petitioners’ petition for writ of certiorari.

North Carolina

PETA, et al. v. Stein, 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 nonprofit 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, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2. The plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing its provisions.

6.12.20 – The federal district court issued an opinion and order declaring N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2(b)(1)-(3) invalid and unenforceable and prohibiting the state from enforcing these provisions. 

  • Intervenor-defendant, the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (7.10.20)
  • Defendants also filed a notice of appeal (7.13.20)
  • Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal (7.23.20)
  • The federal district court consolidated all three appeals (8.4.20)
  • Appellants-defendants filed their opening brief (12.23.20)
  • Appellees-plaintiffs filed their response brief (2.22.21)

2.23.23 – The Fourth Circuit Court issued an opinion partially affirming and partially reversing 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 Amendment.

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, the petitioners argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision overlooks the common-law tort framework established by the statute. The 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 (No. 22-1148), criticizing the Fourth Circuit Court for creating a circuit split on First Amendment protections in nonpublic areas. The 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.

  • Respondents PETA et al. submitted their brief opposing the petitions for writs of certiorari in both cases (8.9.23)
  • Petitioners Josh Stein et al. filed their reply brief in docket no. 22-1150 (8.23.23)
  • Petitioner the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. filed a reply brief in docket no. 22-1148 (8.23.23)

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 nonpublic 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. The 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.

  • Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (5.31.16)
  • Defendants filed a sealed motion for summary judgment (6.3.16)

7.7.17 – The federal 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 Resources Defense Council, Inc., PETA, and Center for Food Safety—filed a complaint against the state of Wyoming, alleging that the Wyoming Data Censorship Statutes are in violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent their enforcement.

10.29.18 – The federal district court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that subsections (c) of the Wyoming Data Censorship Statutes are facially unconstitutional. The court entered a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

State Legislative Actions

Alabama | Arkansas | Idaho | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Missouri | Montana | North Carolina | Texas | Utah | Wyoming

Alabama

Adopted on April 26, 2002, the Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act (SB 271), codified at Ala. Code § 13A-11-150 et seq., prohibits entering an animal facility under false pretenses to obtain records or data through theft or deception or to release animals without the owner’s consent.

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), codified at Ark. Code § 16-118-113, prohibits individuals from unlawfully entering commercial properties, including agricultural production operations, with the intent to access records, obtain data, or record activities on the premises.

Idaho

Adopted on February 28, 2014, SB 1337, codified at Idaho Code § 18-7042,  prohibits interference with agricultural operations. This includes deceptive trespassing onto agricultural premises or obtaining employment with the intent to record audio or video of activities at these sites. Violations are classified as misdemeanors, carrying penalties of up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho declared Idaho Code § 18-7042 unconstitutional in November 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, HF 589, codified at Iowa Code § 717A.3A, establishes a criminal offense for fraudulent entry into agricultural operation facilities or obtaining employment with the intent of committing agricultural production facility fraud. Violations are classified as serious misdemeanors.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled Idaho Code § 717A.3A unconstitutional in February 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, SF 519, codified at Iowa Code § 717A.3B, criminalizes trespassing on agricultural production facilities. It establishes a misdemeanor offense for agricultural production facility trespass, including undercover investigations.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa declared Iowa Code § 717A.3B unconstitutional in March 2022. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 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, SF 2413, codified at Iowa Code § 716.7A criminalizes food operation trespass. Anyone found guilty of committing food operation trespass will face an aggravated misdemeanor charge.

Adopted on April 30, 2021, HF 775, codified at Iowa Code § 727.8A, 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.

Kansas

Adopted in 1990, the Kansas Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act, codified at K.S.A. § 47-1825 et seq., criminalizes trespassing on an animal facility with the intent to cause damage. This includes unauthorized entry to capture photos or videos. Kansas became the first state to enact an ag-gag law. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled the Kansas ag-gag law unconstitutional in January 2020. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 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, Kentucky (SB 16), codified at KRS 511.100, expanded the definition of critical infrastructure in the state, including facilities involved in commercial food production and animal feeding operations. Unauthorized monitoring of these facilities, whether by drone or other means, is 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, SB 631, codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.013, requires farm animal professionals who obtained recordings of animal abuse or neglect to submit the footage to law enforcement within 24 hours. Failure to comply is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. 

Adopted on May 13, 2014, SB 491, codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.405, criminalizes gaining access to an animal facility under false pretenses or entering such a facility with the intent to unlawfully obtain records or data. This law became effective on January 1, 2017.

Adopted on June 10, 2021, HB 574, codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 261.099, 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.

Montana

In 1991, the Montana legislature adopted the Protection of Farm Animals and Research Facilities Act, codified at Mont. Code Ann. § 81-30-103(2)(e), prohibiting unauthorized control over an animal facility, its animals, or any property within the facility without the owner’s consent.   

North Carolina

In 2015, the North Carolina legislature passed Session Law 2015-50, codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99A-2, prohibiting unauthorized access to nonpublic areas and any activities exceeding the scope of permitted access. This includes placing unattended cameras or electronic surveillance devices on an employer’s premises to record 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 June 2020 (PETA, et al. v. Stein, No. 1:16-cv-25). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision in February 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, codified at NDCC 12.1-21.1-01 to 05, which prohibits unauthorized individuals from entering an animal research facility and using recording equipment. Anyone violating the law face a Class B misdemeanor charge.

Texas

Adopted on June 15, 2017, HB 1643, codified at Texas Code § 423.009, prohibits the operation of unmanned aircraft over concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for the purpose of capturing images.

Adopted on June 18, 2021, HB 1480, codified at Texas Code § 252.001 to 252.004, criminalizes the intentional release, theft, destruction, or loss of an animal or crop from a facility without the owner’s consent. It also penalizes property damage, unauthorized entry to tamper with records or equipment, and unlawful access with criminal intent.

Utah

Adopted on March 20, 2012, HB 187, codified at Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112, establishes the offense of agricultural operation interference, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly or intentionally record images or sounds from an agricultural operation without the owner’s consent.

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

In 2015 and 2016, Wyoming enacted two laws, known as the Data Censorship statutes, codified at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-414 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 40-27-101, which criminalize trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and the unauthorized collection of such 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).