Results
Displaying 11 - 20 of 69
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 (S.D. Iowa, 2018) | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 | Plaintiffs, a collection of local and national non-profit organizations brought this action alleging that Iowa Code § 717A.3A, which criminalizes agrigcultural facility fraud by either obtaining access to an agricultural facility on false pretenses or making a false statement or false representation in regard to the application or agreement to be employed by an agricultural facility, impeded their ability to advocate for their respective causes. Some of the non-profit organizations listed as plaintiffs, engaged in undercover investigations where investigators serve as employees at argricultural facilities to gather information about the inner workings of slaughterhouses and other facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the Iowa statute was unconstitutional on its face becuase it violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Discrict Court determined that the plaintiffs have standing to make their claim and have an injury sufficient to suppor their standing. The defendants sought a motion to dismiss. The District Court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the First Amendment claim and granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the Equal Protection claim. | Case |
| AR - Ecoterrorism - Farm Animal and Research Facilities | A.C.A. § 5-62-201 - 204 | AR ST § 5-62-201 to 204 | This Arkansas subchapter concerns illegal acts committed against agricultural production and animal research facilities. Under the act, a person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person acquires or otherwise exercises control over an animal facility, an animal from an animal facility, or other property from an animal facility, with the intent to deprive the owner of the animal facility, animal, or property and disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Any person who violates any provision of this subchapter is deemed guilty of a Class D felony and will be ordered to pay replacement costs/restitution. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert | 2013 WL 4017889 (D. Utah July 22, 2013) | The Animal Legal Defense Fund and other plaintiffs challenged Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112, which criminalizes recording images or sounds at industrialized farming operations, and entering industrialized farming operations by false pretenses or misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs alleged that § 76-6-112 violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had not suffered actual harm, and thus did not have standing. The U.S. District Court Judge dismissed some Plaintiffs from the case, but allowed it to move forward. | Case | |
| SC - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 21. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Code 1976 § 47-21-10 to 90 | SC ST § 47-21-10 to 90 | The set of law comprises South Carolina's Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person exercises control over an animal facility or the property located there, or if that person damages the facility or its property. A person also commits an offense if he or she enters a facility without the effective consent of the owner and remains concealed with the intent to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Violation for disruption or damage to a facility or its property is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 3 years imprisonment. Violation for illegal entry is a misdemeanor with a fine up to $5,000 and/or 1 year imprisonment. | Statute |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, SHY 38, INC. & HOPE SANCTUARY, Plaintiffs, v. LAURA KELLY & DEREK SCHMIDT, Defendants | Slip Copy, No. CV 18-2657-KHV, 2020 WL 362626 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2020) | The Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), Center for Food Safety (“CFS”), Shy 38, Inc. and Hope Sanctuary are interest groups that aim to protect and advocate for animals and the environment. These interest groups filed suit on December 4, 2018 against the Governor and Attorney General of Kansas seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protect Act was unconstitutional. The Act made it a crime to damage or destroy an animal facility or an animal, exercise control over an animal facility or animal from a facility, take photos or videos at an animal facility that that is not open to the public, and remain at an animal facility against the owner’s wishes. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ALDF desired to conduct an undercover investigation in Kansas but refrained from doing so out of fear of criminal prosecution under the Act. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Act violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be subject to criminal prosecution under subsection (a) of K.S.A. 47-1827, the ALDF investigator had to cause physical damage to an animal or the animal facility or its property. The Plaintiffs did not allege that the ALDF investigator intended to cause such physical damage so the ALDF investigator was not at risk of criminal prosecution under the provision and, therefore, ALDF did not demonstrate standing to challenge subsection (a). ALDF alleged sufficient injury to support standing to challenge subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act. CFS, Shy 38, and Hope Sanctuary also had standing to challenge those subsections. The Court found that subsections (b), (c), and (d) regulated speech rather than conduct and was content-based rather than neutral-based. The Court ultimately concluded that the Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their claim that subsections (b), (c), and (d) violated the First Amendment. The Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their lack of standing claim for subsection (a) and K.S.A. 47-1828. | Case | |
| FL - Ecoterrorism - Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act | West's F. S. A. § 828.40 - 43 | FL ST § 828.40 - 43 | This set of laws comprises the Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Under the Act, a person who intentionally causes physical disruption to the property, personnel, or operations of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property, including animals or records, used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage, commits a felony of the third degree. | Statute |
| PA - Ecoterrorism - § 3311. Ecoterrorism | 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309 - 3311; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8319 | PS ST 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309 - 3311; PS ST 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8319 | This collective set of laws comprises Pennsylvania's ecoterrorim and agroterrorism provisions. The state has an agricultural vandalism law (misdemeanor or felony, depending on pecuniary loss) and law prohibiting the destruction of agricultural crops (felony). A person is guilty of ecoterrorism if the person commits a specified offense against property by: intimidating or coercing a person participating in an activity involving animals, plants, or natural resources; or preventing or obstructing a person involved in such an activity. The law has a provision that states a person who is on public property, or on private property with permission, and is peaceable exercising his or her constitutional rights is immune from prosecution and from civil liability under Pa.C.S. Sec. 8319. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 8 F.4th 781 (8th Cir. 2021) | This appeal centers around an Iowa statute called the “Agricultural Production Facility Fraud" law that prohibited accessing agricultural production facilities by false pretenses and making false statements as part of an employment application to an agricultural production facility. Animal rights organizations filed a § 1983 action against state and county officials contending the law violated the the First Amendment free speech clause. The district court ruled that both provisions are unconstitutional and entered an injunction against enforcement of the entire statute. Here, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found both the Access Provision and the Employment Provision constitute direct regulations of speech. However, the court held the conclude that the Access Provision's prohibition on assuming false pretenses to obtain access to an agricultural production facility is consistent with the First Amendment. In contrast, the Employment Provision did not survive strict scrutiny because is proscribes speech that is protected by the First Amendment and was not narrowly tailored. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs on Iowa Code § 717A.3A(1)(b), reversed the judgment declaring unconstitutional § 717A.3A(1)(a), vacated the injunction against enforcement of § 717A.3A(1)(a), (2), and (3), and remanded for further proceedings. | Case | |
| ID - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 70. Trespass and Malicious Injuries to Property. | I.C. § 18-7015, 7037, 7040, 7041, 7042 | ID ST § 18-7015, 7037, 7040, 7041, 7042 | These laws comprise Idaho's animal enterprise interference/"ecoterrorism" laws. The state has a provision specific to trespass into enclosures for fur-bearing animals such as foxes. Additionally, § 18-7037 prohibits the unauthorized release of an animal, a bird, or an aquatic species which has been lawfully confined for agriculture, science, research, commerce, public propagation, protective custody, or education. This offense is a misdemeanor and the actor is liable for restitution that includes replacement costs, property damage, and even costs of repeating an experiment. Section § 18-7040 defines the crime of interference with agricultural research where a person knowingly damages property, obtains property with the intent of hinder the research; obtains access to the facility by misrepresentation to perform acts to damage or hinder the research; enters the facility with the intent to damage, alter, or duplicate data or records; or the release of an animal or injury to an animal at the facility. Violation is a felony with punishment of up to 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $10,000. The state also has a separate section on damage to aquaculture operations. | Statute |
| TN - Ecoterrorism - Part 8. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection | T. C. A. § 39-14-801 - 806 | TN ST § 39-14-801 - 806 | This chapter comprises the Tennessee Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without consent, the person exercises control over an animal facility, an animal from an animal facility, or other property from an animal facility with the intent to deprive the owner of the facility, animal, or property and to disrupt the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Other offenses include destruction of property, including freeing of animals located there, or entering an animal facility with the intent to disrupt or damage the enterprise or its property. A violation is a Class C felony if the person exercises control over the facility or the damage is $500 or more. A violation is a Class B misdemeanor if the damage is less than $500 or the person illegally enters the facility with intent to damage it. Any person who has been damaged by reason of a violation of this part may recover all actual and consequential damages, punitive damages, and court costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the person causing the damage. | Statute |