Animal advocates gun for ‘ag-gag’ law after appellate ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis on Monday reversed and remanded a lawsuit challenging an Arkansas “ag-gag” law over First Amendment concerns.

The appellate judges found there was enough evidence to show the plaintiffs, led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, are subject to injury as a result of the law.

Further proceedings are expected in the lower Eastern District of Arkansas court, where a suit challenging the law was initially dismissed a year ago. No trial date has been set.

Cristina Stella, managing attorney at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, said the next legal steps could go in a number of different directions. She expects attorneys to file motions for summary judgement after a period of discovery.

“It’s really hard to say,” she said. “I haven’t negotiated a schedule with the defendants yet. I would expect months at least before we have a better picture of the timeline.”

Arkansas Code 16-118-113, a measure that allows civil penalties against anyone who exposes animal cruelty or environmental abuses at Arkansas farms, is one of several laws that allow employers to sue whistleblowers who, among other things, publish documents or recordings without permission. Journalists conducting undercover investigations also are liable under the law.

The defendants are Republican Rep. DeAnn Vaught of Horatio, who sponsored the bill, and her husband, Jonathan Vaught, who operate a pig farm in Horatio, and Peco Foods, which operates slaughter and processing plants as well as hatcheries in Pocahontas and Batesville.

Michael Heister, attorney for Peco Foods, offered no comment on the appel

late court’s decision.

Neither Rep. Vaught nor Roger Rowe, attorney for the Vaught family, immediately returned phone messages for comment.

Advocacy groups have sued and helped overturn several “ag-gag” laws in Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Iowa and North Carolina. Courts have ruled the statutes as unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment.

Stella is hopeful that the same can be done in Arkansas.

“We’ve won every case that we’ve filed,” she said.

Historically, animalwelfare groups have used whistleblower recordings, images, sounds and documents to inform the public about cruel or illegal activities at agricultural facilities.

Two of the lead plaintiffs, Animal Legal Defense Fund and Animal Equality, have plans to investigate Peco Foods’ chicken slaughterhouses and the Vaughts’ pig farm, however, they have refrained from investigating out of fear that Peco Foods and the Vaughts would file a lawsuit against them under the Arkansas statute, court documents show.

“By the very existence of the law, it’s chilling our First Amendment speech,” Stella said.

In February 2020, U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, saying that any injury to the animal-welfare groups was speculative.

The appellate judges disagreed. Circuit Judges Steven Colloton, Roger Wollman and Bobby Shepherd found that the lead plaintiffs are subject to injury under the Arkansas statute. In the case, the animal-welfare groups sent letters to Peco Foods and the Vaughts requesting that they waive their rights under the statute if and when they do investigate. Neither defendant responded.

The judges said it is plausible that Peco Foods and the Vaughts “will likely react in predictable ways” by resorting to their legal remedies.

The Arkansas statute, mirrored after other “aggag” laws backed by industry supporters, was designed to protect the business interests of the Vaught family and others from being investigated, Stella said.

Defendants have argued that the language in the law is broad enough to encompass any commercial property, including retail stores, nursing homes and medical centers. But the intent of the statute is clear, Stella said: to prevent whistleblowers from revealing the systemic cruelty in animal agriculture to the public.