Federal Judge Rules That Idaho’s 'Ag-Gag' Law Is Unconstitutional
branislavpudar / Shutterstock.com
A handful of other states have similar laws designed to suppress agriculture industry whistleblowers.
An Idaho law that made it a crime to secretly record video at agricultural facilities—even if the footage documented animal abuse—is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Monday.
In his ruling, U.S. District Court Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote that the so-called “ag-gag” law violated both the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. At least seven other states currently have comparable statutes in place, according to a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs in the case.
“Prohibiting undercover investigators or whistleblowers from recording an agricultural facility’s operations inevitably suppresses a key type of speech because it limits the information that might later be published or broadcast,” Winmill wrote in the 29-page ruling.
He added later: “The recording prohibition gives agricultural facility owners veto power, allowing owners to decide what can and cannot be recorded, effectively turning them into state-backed censors able to silence unfavorable speech about their facilities.”
The circumstances that led to the case can be traced back to last year when an animal rights group, Mercy for Animals, released secretly recorded video footage that showed workers at a dairy in Hansen, Idaho, dragging a cow on the floor, by her neck, using a chain attached to a tractor. The footage also showed people beating, kicking and jumping on cows.
Following the video’s release, the Idaho state Legislature passed a bill that, among other things, made it a misdemeanor to record undercover video or audio footage in agricultural facilities that were not open to the public. Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed the bill on Feb. 14, 2014.
About a month later, a coalition of animal rights groups and other organizations mounted a legal challenge against the law, filing a civil rights complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho and the publication CounterPunch were among the plaintiffs that filed the complaint.
State Sen. Jim Patrick, a Republican who represents a district that includes Twin Falls County, sponsored the legislation that led to the ban on recording at agricultural facilities.
According to Monday’s court ruling, last year, as the bill was being debated, he compared animal rights investigators to “marauding invaders centuries ago who swarmed into foreign territory and destroyed crops to starve foes into submission.”
And in describing the legislation he said: “This is the way you combat your enemies.”
As Judge Winmill outlined why the statute also violated the Equal Protection Clause, he pointed to comments state legislators had made about animal rights groups.
“The overwhelming evidence gleaned from the legislative history indicates that [the statute] was intended to silence animal welfare activists, or other whistleblowers, who seek to publish speech critical of the agricultural production industry,” he wrote.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from applying laws in such a way that they deny people in similar circumstances or conditions equal protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified tests to help decide when legislation that classifies certain people differently amounts to a constitutional violation.
A key aspect of these tests, which is highlighted in the ruling, is whether the classification is “rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.”
Winmill found that the Idaho statute was not aligned with the standard. “Protecting the private interests of a powerful industry, which produces the public’s food supply, against public scrutiny is not a legitimate government interest,” the judge wrote.
Idaho’s Office of the Attorney General is reviewing the ruling. “We’re still looking at it and deciding how to proceed,” said Todd Dvorak, the office’s director of constituent affairs.
Matthew Liebman, a senior attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, said that other states with laws similar to the one in Idaho include Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota and Utah. He also said that a court case involving a challenge to Utah’s law is currently in the discovery phase.
Bill Lucia is a Reporter for Government Executive's Route Fifty.
NEXT STORY: NYC to refine body camera policies