Facts of Animal Legal Defense Fund v Wasden
In 1979, lawyers and law students who cared about animal issues came together to start the Animal Legal Defense Fund (animallegaldefensefund.org) or ALDF, with the mission to "protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the enactment and enforcement of humane laws and the strengthening and expansion of the legal rights of animals." Today, its mission includes "fighting the legal battles for animals on the front lines. With nearly 300 staff and 200 student chapters, ALDF has defended the lives and interests of animals in the courtroom and the legislatures by prosecuting animal cruelty cases, advocating for stronger anti-cruelty laws, and influencing policies to dynamically affect the lives of animals in America . "
ALDF, which has handled more than 20,000 cases and given out millions of dollars in grants to fund cases fighting for animals, is known for being the only national animal organization whose entirely licensed legal staff is and "experiences first-hand the cruelty, deprivation, and suffering of animals in laboratories, factory farms, puppy mills, and slaughterhouses."
As an example of ALDF’s legal actions behalf of animals, in 2016 it fought the importation of endangered or threatened species such as elephants, lions, giraffes, and hippos into the United States.
Case Overview
In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden, the Plaintiff-Appellant, Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF"), a nonprofit organization of attorneys concerned with the interests of animals, appealed the judgment against all Defendants, who were acting in their official capacity as the attorney general and representatives of the State of Idaho. The district court denied ALDF’s motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants’ cross motion, holding that Defendants did not violate the First Amendment or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In order to further its mission of ensuring protection for animals by "protecting ‘the interests of animals through the legal system . . . [and] not allowing the law to be a barrier to protecting animals,’" ALDF brought suit to enjoin the State of Idaho from enforcing Idaho’s Ag-Gag law—federal courts were similarly enjoined from enforcing Ag-Gag laws of the other states the same day. Under the statute, anyone subject to civil liability for attending performances of or stopping at roadside animal exhibits could be charged with a misdemeanor if that person recorded or filmed anything at the exhibit and used the footage to criticize the treatment of the animal. The district court found that ALDF did not have standing to challenge the Idaho Ag-Gag law under either Article III or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it failed to establish a constitutional injury in fact.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed the district court’s ruling. On the Article III standing issue, the Ninth Circuit held that ALDF lacked standing because it did not allege commercial harm or concrete plans to undertake paid investigations, which have been recognized as a type of injury in fact. On the constitutional standing issue, the Ninth Circuit held that the statutory restrictions were not content based or viewpoint discriminatory under the First Amendment. Although the Ninth Circuit did not condone the discretionary review process dictated by the Idaho law, it noted that the law only imposed a neutral burden on speech. The Ninth Circuit also noted that while Idaho’s Ag-Gag law was neither content based nor viewpoint discriminatory, it was still constitutionally permissible under the O’Brien test because it was within government’s power to enact, it furthered the government’s interest in protecting animal enterprises, the burden it imposed was no greater than necessary, and it left open ample alternative channels for communication.
Parties’ Arguments
ALDF argued it properly asserted standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law because it was subject to the law’s application. ALDF argued that the law creates a content-based restriction on speech and the undisputed evidence shows it is overbroad. From ALDF’s perspective, the law also fails strict scrutiny: there is no compelling government interest in protecting agricultural research facility trade secrets from dissemination by the media and the law could not be narrowly tailored because it does not require first determining whether the information is a trade secret prior to bringing charges. ALDF claimed there was a perspective problem of challenging the Idaho statute through context-neutral obscenity restrictions. However, ALDF explained that it recognizes that "traditional obscenity" is considered unprotected by the First Amendment.
The State of Idaho argued that ALDF lacked standing because it does not "face[ ] a credible threat of prosecution." Further, the State argued ALDF lacked standing because no member of ALDF faced prosecution for engaging in covered conduct. The State contended that the legislative history of the law shows that the law does not prohibit investigating farms, or reporting on animal cruelty as ALDF alleged; it merely prohibits obtaining information by fraud or deception. The State also asserted that the law was not content based because the law only applied to concealed recording and did not regulate speech on the basis of content. Further, the State argued the law protects information that is commercially and financially sensitive for agriculture and thus qualifies as a trade secret under the law. Finally, the State contended the law was narrowly tailored because it banned only the "most egregious conduct" used to leak sensitive agricultural information.
Court’s Analysis and Conclusion
The court ultimately held for the defendants and granted their motions to dismiss. Judge Winmill found the plaintiffs were sufficiently protected by the protections of acting as private citizens, writing "the 1st Amendment right to petition . . . is protected in order to permit a private citizen to criticize the government." Judge Winmill found that "[a] private citizen has the right to pursue public redress in the form of a lawsuit as a means to ‘ask the government [] to take [some] action on their behalf . . . .’"
Because of the clearly defined 1st Amendment protections of private citizens, "it could not be clearer that [the private plaintiff] was making her claim as a private citizen petitioning her government for redress."
Judge Winmill’s opinion noted the recent trend of courts disfavoring SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuits, and wrote "it has been the trend of state legislatures and federal courts . . . to place ‘burdens on SLAPP suits." Judge Winmill further stated "the court has no penchant for allowing SLAPP suits to squeeze free speech from our society."
In Voight v. CBS News Virginia the plaintiffs argued that Starling and Walden had engaged in trespass by committing criminal acts which amounted to trespass, but the Idaho Court of Appeals sided with the lower court. The Idaho Court of Appeals noted that "[m]erely trespassing in order to obtain evidence of a crime does not constitute trespass by a preponderance of the evidence."
Using the ruling in Voight, Judge Winmill found the plaintiffs’ actions did not constitute trespass as no physical harm was done to the plaintiffs or their property.
Judge Winmill also issued takings and conversion claims asserting that Starling and Walden filmed and documented the operations of Idaho State University (ISU) without permission. The complaint alleged that state law gave the plaintiffs the right to property seizure without due process or just compensation.
Judge Winmill stated that "a taking of personal property occurs when a person has . . . wrongfully seized possessions belonging to another and intended to hold them from the owner." Judge Winmill determined the plaintiffs failed to establish they had a rightful ownership interest in the documents and recordings seized because the "collection procedures that Walden allegedly engaged in hardly constitute a taking under federal law." Because of this, plaintiffs’ takings and conversion claims were dismissed.
Lastly, Judge Winmill denied the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims finding that 1st Amendment discussions are more appropriate in political discourse than the courtroom.
Potential Impact on Ag-Gag Laws
Ag-gag laws are statutes that attempt to limit the ability of individuals to take pictures or videos on farms or otherwise document employment practices at farms. Most of these laws have not been found to be constitutional, several have been struck down in court, and more are being challenged. BSD has been involved in criminal prosecutions under ag-gag laws in Oklahoma, Idaho, North Carolina, and Kentucky.
When a federal district court in Idaho last year entertained a First Amendment challenge under an ag-gag law, it relied on a number of cases that had already invalidated such laws. Ultimately, that case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where oral argument is set to take place in a few weeks. The Idaho law has been enjoined pending the outcome of that appeal.
Animal Legal Defense Fund challenged the Idaho ag-gag law in 2014 , but chose voluntarily to dismiss the case after being notified by the Idaho Department of Justice that the law would not be enforced. So, unlike the case decided this week, the Idaho ag-gag law will have to be challenged through a lawsuit in order to be invalidated.
The decision in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden tells ag-gag advocates to proceed with caution when seeking criminal prosecutions under ag-gag laws, especially in jurisdictions within the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, and Alaska, where federal courts have indicated that ag-gag laws are likely to be unconstitutional.
There will be additional litigation seeking to invalidate other ag-gag laws, including Idaho, North Carolina, and Utah.
Further Reach of Decision
ALDF v. Wasden is based on the First Amendment but has components addressing the Fourth Amendment claims, as well. This case has the potential to affect the fate of animals at the hands of agricultural owners. It also has the potential to influence how people advocating for animal rights should go about making changes and fighting for the cause. One of the issues underlying the ALDF v. Wasden case was the "ag-gag" law, which essentially attempts to protect agriculture from groups collecting evidence to bring light to any potential instances of animal cruelty. If animals are not being treated properly and people cannot gather evidence to expose such treatment, it is the animals that lose in the end. If the Idaho law is upheld, farmers could use the law to remove anyone seen recording any instances of what is seen as a threat to agricultural interests. This would be in addition to any penalties imposed. By allowing this law to stand, other state legislatures may attempt to enact similar laws, reducing the effectiveness of activists and advocates for animal rights. This would also affect the volume of cases brought by organizations such as ALDF, even if those cases do not involve the agricultural industry. The impact that the ALDF v. Wasden case could have on how animal rights law is practiced cannot be understated. Since the 12 states that possess ag-gag laws include Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Arkansas, Indiana, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Kentucky, this is an important case for animal rights law not only on a national scale, but also on a global scale.
Reaction and Commentary
Following the ruling, reactions from various groups highlighted continued concerns about the decision. Animal rights advocates sharply criticized the decision, insisting that it infringed upon efforts to expose cruelty in the food production system. Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells expressed reservation about the decision, calling it a "real blow to whistleblowers everywhere." Similarly, the Animal Welfare Institute stated, "[T]he ruling poses a significant threat to the ability of the public and the press to investigate inhumane and unsafe food production practices."
From the agriculture industry, the decision was met with satisfaction. The North American Meat Institute (NAMI), who filed an amicus brief supporting the Idaho law , lauded the decision. NAMI President and CEO Barry Carpenter released a statement proclaiming that the "ruling is a victory for responsible businesses and consumers and a strong step toward preventing food tampering, protecting our nation’s food supply from serious threats, and defending the rights of workers with access to sensitive information in the workplace." Similarly, Idaho State Senator Jim Patrick, who sponsored the bill, remarked that:
The announcement comes at a time when some of our nation’s highest profile brands — the peanut and egg industries — have been severely tarnished by persons who sought personal profit from illegally obtained, consumer-harming information. H.B. 589 is designed to protect consumers, employers, and employees from those who would seek to undermine those interests.