Kansas is a major agricultural producer with the third-most cows of any state, and until being struck down, its Ag-Gag law had successfully prevented whistleblowers from investigating the conditions that millions of pigs, cows, chickens, and other animals endure.
In a major victory for animals, workers, and transparency in
the animal agriculture industry, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
that struck down Kansas’s “Ag-Gag” law for violating the First
Amendment. The decision follows a lawsuit filed in 2018 by an Animal
Legal Defense Fund-led coalition of animal, environmental, and food
safety advocacy groups challenging the law’s constitutionality.
The Kansas law in question made it a crime to engage in activities
that are essential to conducting undercover investigations that have
in the past revealed horrific treatment of farmed animals and food
workers to the public. The appeals court held that Kansas may not
silence views critical of industrial animal agriculture. The court’s
decision affirmed that videos, articles, advocacy, and public
dialogue generated by whistleblowing and undercover investigations
of factory farms and slaughterhouses relate to a matter of public
concern: The treatment of animals and workers on factory farms and
slaughterhouses, and manner in which food is produced. Such speech
lies at the core of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s
decision leaves that important ruling in place.
The 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision
notes: “[T]he text and legislative history of the Act evince
Kansas’s desire to limit the ability of [the Animal Legal Defense
Fund] and like organizations to engage in true speech critical of
animal facilities.. . .. We reject this approach because it elevates
form over substance and permits Kansas to do just what the First
Amendment prohibits: ‘license one side of a debate to fight
freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of
Queensberry rules.’”
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to disturb the lower court
decisions is a victory for farmed animals, factory farm and
slaughterhouse workers, and food and public safety — as it leaves
intact the public’s constitutional rights over protecting corporate
interests and profits. Until there are cameras publicly broadcasting
the conditions within factory farms and slaughterhouses,
investigations are the country’s only opportunity to see the
horrific ‘industry standard’ conditions under which food is made,”
says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells.
“The industry works hard to keep its practices secret, knowing
consumers won’t accept the intense confinement and other inhumane
treatment of animals, as evidenced by the passing of California’s
Proposition 12 and other proposed state legislation.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to
California’s Proposition 12 ballot initiative, which outlaws the
sale of animal products from pigs held in gestation crates, calves
held in veal crates, and eggs from hens kept in battery cages. The
measure passed after undercover investigation footage exposed the
cramped and cruel conditions in which pigs, calves, and chickens
spend their lives at industrial animal agricultural facilities.
“The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision
leaves in place important constitutional protections for
investigators working with animal rights groups to expose misconduct
in the industrial animal agriculture industry,” says Alan Chen, a
University of Denver law professor who helped lead the lawsuit
against Kansas. “This is a big win for the national campaign against
Ag-Gag laws.” Enacted in 1990, the Kansas Ag-Gag law was the oldest
in the United States. Kansas is a major agricultural producer with
the third-most cows of any state, and until being struck down, its
Ag-Gag law had successfully prevented whistleblowers from
investigating the conditions that millions of pigs, cows, chickens,
and other animals endure.
There have been nine lawsuits challenging state Ag-Gag laws around
the country. Earlier lawsuits have resulted in courts striking down
similar laws or portions of laws in Iowa, North Carolina, Idaho,
Utah, and Wyoming. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will soon
consider the constitutionality of Iowa’s second law, after striking
down Iowa’s first law and recently clearing the way for an Animal
Legal Defense Fund-led coalition’s lawsuit challenging Arkansas’ law
to proceed. A decision concerning North Carolina’s law is pending in
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Animal Legal Defense Fund
is also currently challenging a third Iowa law in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
The Kansas coalition is comprised of the Animal Legal Defense Fund,
the Center for Food Safety, and state farmed animal organizations
Shy 38, Inc. and Hope Sanctuary. The coalition is represented by
Public Justice, leading First Amendment scholars, the law firm Foley
& Mansfield, and attorneys with the plaintiff organizations, with
assistance from Joshua Rosenkranz and the Supreme Court & Appellate
practice at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe.