A coalition of animal activist groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a North Carolina “ag-gag” law designed to deter undercover investigators from publicizing information about corporate misconduct.
North Carolina is one of seven states with enforceable “ag-gag” laws that criminalize data collection from private property. Most of the laws concern the agriculture industry, and attempt to keep employees or outside groups from photographing or videotaping animal abuse at large farming operations. Animal rights groups rely on these investigations to bring abuses to light. Published videos can lead to charges against the abusers and encourage policy changes. In 2008, for example, undercover video exposed the issue of “downer” cows, which can’t stand on their own but, at that time, were still being used for beef. That video led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history.

The North Carolina state law, which went into effect January 1, makes undercover videos punishable by law. The Property Protection Act became law after legislators voted to override the governor’s veto of the bill.

According to the complaint filed January 13, the law’s purpose is to punish those “who set out to investigate employers and property owners’ conduct because they believe there is value in exposing employers and property owners’ unethical or illegal behavior to the disinfecting sunlight of public scrutiny.”

The plaintiffs, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Center for Food Safety, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch and Government Accountability Project, believe North Carolina’s law violates the Equal Protection Clause and their rights to free speech and to a free press.

The legal challenge is the first in the nation to make claims under both the U.S. Constitution and a state constitution. Last year, a federal court overturned Idaho’s ag-gag law contending it violated the First and 14th amendments. Last December, a federal judge ruled that a challenge to Wyoming’s law must go forward, citing “serious concerns” about the law’s constitutionality.

More information on the lawsuit is available here.