Skip to content Skip to footer

Judges Strike Down “Ag-Gag” Laws for Violating the First Amendment

States using laws to conceal the cruelty in animal agriculture from the public are losing in courts across the U.S.

Pigs that are being given water by animal rights activists are seen inside trucks as they arrive to the Farmer John slaughterhouse in the early morning hours on September 27, 2018, in Vernon, California.

On January 22, 2020, a federal judge struck down the nation’s oldest “ag-gag” law, the latest in a series of victories against these laws and in favor of the First Amendment right to seek the truth about how animal agribusinesses treat the animals in their care. Kansas’s Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act, passed in 1990, criminalized a wide range of conduct related to animal facilities, most importantly, entering an animal facility not open to the public with the intent to take photographs or recordings.

Across the U.S., many states seeking to conceal the inherent cruelty of animal agriculture from the general public have passed laws like the Kansas statute targeting whistleblowers and undercover investigators. These laws, commonly known as “ag-gag” laws, prevent us from gaining access to and exposing the widespread cruel (yet standard) treatment of farm animals. Without these critical undercover investigations, the public would effectively be kept from learning about the cruelty involved in daily factory farming practices.

For example, the last investigation at an Iowa pig farm conducted by Animal Outlook in December 2011 (where I served as a litigation extern) — before that state passed an “ag-gag” law in early March 2012 — revealed that the facility routinely castrated and mutilated piglets by cutting off their tails and genitals without painkillers, resulting in many cases of herniated intestines. The investigation additionally exposed the facility for letting countless piglets suffer from injuries and illness. Moreover, when piglets died, the facility pulled out their intestines and fed them back to other piglets. These are not isolated incidents; cruelty like this is standard practice throughout the animal agriculture industry.

a pig screams while on the floor of a slaughterhouse
A “downer pig” who is about to be stunned and bled.

Similar instances of cruelty were uncovered by Animal Outlook at a North Carolina chicken slaughterhouse in March and April 2015, where our investigator recorded workers violently throwing, punching and tearing feathers out of birds, often for their own amusement. Our investigator even saw birds being buried alive as a method of “disposal.” In 2016, North Carolina passed an “ag-gag” law in an effort to prevent further investigations. Without investigators exercising their constitutional right to record these practices, these acts of egregious cruelty would never have come to light and consumers would have no way to know the truth of what occurs in industrial factory farms.

In January’s ruling, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas struck down most provisions of Kansas’s “ag-gag” law based on First Amendment grounds. Judge Kathryn Vratil declared that the statute violated the First Amendment by suppressing speech based on the speaker’s ideology or viewpoint; in this case, the view that animals should be free from cruelty and suffering.

This important decision comes on the heels of similar laws being struck down on First Amendment grounds in other states, including Idaho, Utah and Iowa. Additional constitutional challenges to “ag-gag” laws are still pending in courts in Arkansas and North Carolina. In Arkansas, plaintiffs including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality and the Center for Biological Diversity are asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit. In North Carolina, a separate lawsuit is making its way through the courts, also alleging that the state’s “ag-gag” law violates the Constitution. Across the country, courts have consistently recognized that such blatant attempts to conceal the horrors of industrial factory farming from the American consumer constitute impermissible and unconstitutional constraints on protected First Amendment speech.

The decision in Kansas marks another important victory for those of us concerned with the animal agriculture industry’s treatment of animals. Protecting the right of investigators to record and photograph egregious acts of cruelty behind the closed doors of factory farms ensures that the truth about factory farming can be seen by both law enforcement and the general public. Such recordings are critical to shining a light on the industrial food system and encouraging consumers to foster a kinder world through their daily choices.

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.