Federal Judge Deems Iowa’s Ag Gag Law Unconstitutional
Photo courtesy of iStock by Getty Images
Earlier this month, a U.S. District Court judge struck down Iowa’s “ag-gag” law on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. The ruling concludes a 2017 lawsuit brought against the state by a broad coalition of animal rights, environmental, and community advocacy groups including the ACLU and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
This “victory makes it clear that the government cannot protect [animal agriculture] industries at the expense of our constitutional rights,” said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells.
In the early 2010s, Big Ag interest groups across the country attempted to push through different types of bans that effectively outlawed investigations into animal farms, slaughter facilities, and other operations like puppy mills. Now these industry-backed laws have been found unconstitutional in four states, building precedent to challenge the seven states where ag-gag remains.
Iowa is the nation’s largest pork and egg producer. In 2012, the state criminalized investigations into animal facilities after activists took undercover jobs at Iowan hog and egg-laying hen farms in order to document and publicize instances of animal abuse. Accordingly, Iowa’s law made it illegal to “obtain access to an agricultural production facility by false pretenses,” mirroring a similar law passed in Alabama in 2002.
Agribusiness groups including the Iowa Cattleman’s Association, Iowa Pork Producers Association, and Iowa Farm Bureau supported the law.
In the years since, 24 additional states have tried to pass increasingly expansive ag-gag laws that go beyond targeting undercover actors by outright banning activities like recording, collecting data, and taking photos at animal facilities. One law in Wyoming went so far as to ban these activities on public lands.
Of these 24 proposed ag-gag laws, 16 failed and 8 passed. However, four of these passed laws have been deemed unconstitutional in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and now Iowa. There is also a fifth challenge underway against the very first ag-gag law, passed in Kansas in 1990.
Across these cases, broad coalitions have argued that ag-gag laws have dangerous implications that extend far beyond animal welfare. Advocates have argued that animal cruelty can have unforeseen public health concerns as injured animals are more likely to harbor dangerous bacteria. In North Carolina, the AARP contended that the state’s law could extend to industries like elder care where abuse is also an issue. Additionally, environmental groups in Wyoming argued that bans on data collection could impact livestock pollution research efforts.
“An especially grievous harm to our democracy occurs when the government uses the power of the criminal laws to target unpopular speech to protect those with power—which is exactly what this law was always about,” said Rita Bettis Austen, ACLU of Iowa legal director.
In its defense, the state of Iowa argued that the law’s “actual interests” were to protect “property and biosecurity” from unauthorized introducers and the diseases they may carry. However, public records show that preventing investigations by animal rights activists was the law’s central intent. One state senator told the press at the time, “we’re aiming [to stop] these groups that go out and gin up campaigns … to give the agriculture industry a bad name.”
Judge James Gritzner argued that the law clearly intended to ban undercover investigations into farms and that the action in question, although misleading or deceitful, is still protected under the First Amendment. The Judge also said the law as written did not achieve the state’s expressed goals of protecting animals and farm owners.
Out this Week: Forget Trump’s tariffs. Corporate consolidation is driving a new farm crisis. And Democrats need to talk about it.
In the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, Open Market’s Claire Kelloway explains how increased corporate concentration underpins a new farm crisis and perpetuates many other rural issues like poor airline service, hospital closures, and the decline of small businesses.
She argues that “changes in public policy, embraced by both parties, have enabled predatory monopolies to strip wealth away from farmers and rural communities and transfer it to America’s snazziest zip codes.” A political opportunity exists for Democrats to take a true stance against economic consolidation, do better by rural America, and shrink their non-metro electoral losses if they ever hope to take back the Senate and White House.
What We’re Reading
Wisconsin residents filed a lawsuit after testing found that chemicals from two nearby farms seeped through sandy soils and made their drinking water unsafe, reports WSAW-TV. Additionally, the farms reached a voluntary agreement with the county DNR to pay for water treatment and bottled water, but residents contest that some homes have “higher levels of nitrates than any approved system can filter out.”
Third-party contracted farmworkers led a four-day strike against the Wonderful Company, a billion-dollar produce conglomerate known for Halos clementines, Pom brand pomegranate juice, and Wonderful Pistachios. As The New Food Economy reports, farmworkers were able to maintain the price they receive per bin after the company attempted to cut bin rates more than 10 percent when workers transitioned from harvesting clementines to mandarin oranges.
An investigation by Bloomberg Businessweek details how USDA’s rollback of Obama-era school nutrition standards is opening the doors once again for big food companies, particularly dairy giants, to pack school menus with their products that are high in fat, salt, and sugar.