animal confinement

By: Ellen Essman, Thursday, May 16th, 2019

In January, we wrote about state “ag-gag” laws and the trend of federal courts overturning such laws nationwide.  “Ag-gag” is the term for fraud and trespass laws that aim to prevent undercover journalists, investigators, animal rights advocates, and other whistleblowers from secretly filming or recording at agricultural production facilities. We specifically discussed a case in Iowa, where the state’s “agricultural production facility fraud law” was found to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds in the federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.  In response to that ruling, the legislature modified the law, but a group made up of animal rights, community, and food safety organizations has again sued the state.  The plaintiffs contend that the new law still violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 

Iowa law: current and former

Shortly following the aforementioned district court decision, Iowa passed a new ag-gag law with slightly different language.  The new Iowa law changes the crime from “agricultural production facility fraud” to “agricultural production facility trespass.” The legislature also changed the language from outlawing false statements or pretenses to outlawing deception.  Another important change is the focus in the new statutory language on the “intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury” to the farm.    

The new law reads:

717A.3B Agricultural production facility trespass.

1. A person commits agricultural production facility trespass if the person does any of the following:

a. Uses deception as described in section 702.9, subsection 1 or 2, on a matter that would reasonably result in a denial of access to an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public, and, through such deception, gains access to the agricultural production facility, with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the agricultural production facility's operations, agricultural animals, crop, owner, personnel, equipment, building, premises, business interest, or customer.

b. Uses deception as described in section 702.9, subsection 1 or 2, on a matter that would reasonably result in a denial of an opportunity to be employed at an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public, and, through such deception, is so employed, with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the agricultural production facility's operations, agricultural animals, crop, owner, personnel, equipment, building, premises, business interest, or customer.

Iowa law defines “deception,” in part, as “knowingly…[c]reating or confirming another’s belief or impression as to the existence or nonexistence of a fact or condition which is false and which the actor does not believe to be true,” or “[f]ailing to correct a false belief or impression as to the existence or nonexistence of a fact or condition which the actor previously has created or confirmed.”

The previous Iowa law, which was struck down in a district court decision, is currently still available on the Iowa Legislature’s website.  The old law made it illegal to gain access to a facility through false pretenses and to make a “false statement or representation” in order to be employed by an agricultural production facility.  Note that the former law did not use the word “deception,” or touch on injury to the farm. 

In the district court decision overturning the previous law, Judge Gritzner agreed with the plaintiffs that the language of the law violated the First Amendment right to free speech because it was content-based, viewpoint based, and overbroad. He decided that even though the law banned false statements, such false statements are still protected under the First Amendment.  In other words, just because Iowa livestock operators do not like the speech of the activists and whistleblowers trying to gain access to their farms, it does not mean that the speech should be infringed upon. 

Animal rights groups and others challenge the new law

On April 22, 2019, shortly after the passage of Iowa’s new law, plaintiffs filed suit against the state once again in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.  Plaintiffs include Animal Legal Defense Fund, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Bailing out Benji, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., and the Center for Food Safety.  In their complaint against the state of Iowa, plaintiffs contend that the new law still violates the Constitution, saying that “the only difference” between the two laws is that the new law “targets a slightly different form of speech.”  In other words, Iowa has changed its law from outlawing false statements or pretenses to outlawing deception, but the plaintiffs believe the new law basically ends up doing the same thing as the old, overturned ag-gag law; it prevents their speech based on content and viewpoint. Plaintiffs rely on the following arguments to illustrate their reasoning:

  • Iowa’s new law bans any negative speech about the agricultural industry, which creates a preference for speech favorable to the industry. 
  • Whistleblowing is not criminalized in other Iowa industries.
  • Iowa statutes already outlaw fraud, trespass, and adulteration of food products, as well as the theft of trade secrets, so agriculture already has adequate protection from economic harm. 
  • Outlawing deception “with the intent to cause…other injury” is too vague; it is not easily discernable what other kinds of speech or actions might be illegal under the statute.

As such, the plaintiffs allege that the Iowa law violates freedom of speech under the First Amendment because it is overbroad, viewpoint-based discrimination, and because it is vaguely written under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause because it “substantially burdens” their exercise of free speech.  The court must determine whether or not they agree with this assessment. 

Many “ag-gag” statutes struck down as unconstitutional, but many more decisions to go

As was mentioned in our January blog post, there is ongoing ag-gag litigation outside of Iowa, as well.  Kansas and North Carolina have both been sued for their ag-gag statutes, and both cases are still pending.  Will the federal courts find laws in Iowa, Kansas and North Carolina unconstitutional like they have previously in Iowa, as well as in Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, or will they find that they do not violate freedom of speech and due process?  Will lawsuits challenge the remaining ag-gag laws in Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota? The answers may take a while to sort out.  

By: Evin Bachelor, Friday, November 09th, 2018

Every year, we hear fascinating legal updates at the American Agricultural Law Association’s annual conference.  Thanks to presentations by Todd Janzen and Brianna Schroeder of Janzen Ag Law in Indianapolis, we were inspired to learn a little more about trends in meat law.  For readers with a livestock operation, these legal issues can present great challenges, and keeping up to date on legal trends helps farmers stay prepared.

Veal, pork, and eggs: states battle each other on minimum confinement space regulations.

California voters passed Proposition 12 in the November 2018 election, which will require producers to comply with minimum confinement space regulations in order to sell certain products in California.  The Prevent Cruelty California Coalition placed the proposition on the ballot, expanding a previous regulation on in-state suppliers, but the new law would apply to any producer trying to sell veal, pork, or eggs in California.  By 2020, veal calves must be housed with at least 43 square feet of usable floor space, breeding pigs must be housed with at least 24 square feet of usable floor space, and egg-laying hens must have at least 1 square foot of floor space.  However, by 2022, egg-laying hens must be cage free.  Proposition 12 strengthens requirements approved by California voters in 2008’s Proposition 2 by imposing the requirements on out-of-state producers who want to sell their products in California.

In 2016, Massachusetts voters approved a ballot measure that would require eggs sold within the state to be cage free by 2022.  Thirteen states, led by Indiana, have sued Massachusetts in the United States Supreme Court in an attempt to stop Massachusetts from enforcing the requirement.  These states allege that the restriction is an attempt to regulate how farmers in other states operate, which violates the rights of other states to create their own regulations.  This would be a constitutional question under what is known as the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from unfairly regulating business activities that have impacts beyond a state’s border.  Status updates on the lawsuit are available here.

Trying a legislative solution to slow the trend of cage-free restrictions, Iowa passed a law earlier this year that requires grocers that sell cage-free eggs to also sell conventional eggs if they want to receive benefits from the USDA WIC program.  Supporters of the law argued that cage-free eggs are often more expensive and excluded from the WIC program.  They argue that as a result, when grocers make commitments to sell only cage-free eggs, they make it more difficult for low-income families to purchase eggs.

Beef: non-meat proteins continue to target beef.

The “Impossible Burger” wants to convince consumers that a non-meat burger patty that tastes just like meat is just around the corner.  Veggie burgers are not new to the grocery store shelves, but recent innovations that have allowed non-meat proteins to improve in taste and texture have raised concerns among meat producers that these products are becoming a serious threat.  Given that many of these innovations have taken aim at the burger market, beef producers in particular have felt a target on their backs.  As we reported in a previous edition of The Harvest, Missouri became the first state this year to regulate labeling of non-animal products as being derived from an animal, and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association has petitioned the USDA to consider regulating labels involving animal terms like “meat.”  Other speakers at the AALA conference indicated that the USDA is currently debating how to regulate labels, but has yet to develop a comprehensive rule package.

Dairy contracts: always know what you are signing.

The market has been very tough for dairy producers.  Having a long term supply contract in place is certainly preferable to no contract, but depending upon the terms of the contract, unfortunate surprises may be in store.

Purchasers often write the contracts, and include terms that favor them.  For example, many contracts contain termination provisions that allow either party to end the agreement for essentially any reason with prior notice, often 30 days.  When producers invest in their operations under the expectation that the contract will stand throughout the term specified, these termination provisions can result in devastating surprises.  As another example, many contracts contain confidentiality agreements that make it difficult for a producer to determine whether the deal they are offered is great, average, or actually bad.  Equally concerning for producers are provisions that shift liability for problems with the milk to the producer, and away from the purchaser who sells the milk on the market.  With modern technology, tracking where milk originated makes this possible.  Courts are likely to enforce these agreements because the law of contracts favors enforcement of private agreements.

Given the current market, many dairy producers felt that they are not in a position to negotiate better terms, for fear that another dairy close by will accept the terms as-is.  This position is made worse by the inability of producers to talk about their contracts with one another because of confidentiality provisions.

What a producer can do is to read the contract carefully and make sure that he or she understands the terms of the contract.  It may be wise to speak with an attorney to verify that the producer’s understanding of the contract matches how the contract is likely to be read by a court.

Subscribe to RSS - animal confinement