Federal judge strikes Iowa “ag-gag” law

Gritzner said in his ruling that Iowa’s law, in effect, implicates First Amendment rights because you could not break the law without engaging in speech. He said the law effectively criminalized undercover investigations of certain agricultural facilities, like puppy mills. And, he wrote, the law was similar, and in parts identical, to laws in other states that regulate conduct and speech about agricultural operations.

“In fact, Iowa is one of many states that have passed or attempted to pass such legislation in the last decade,” Gritzner wrote. “Of those in effect, several have been invalidated or limited based on First Amendment challenges.”

Gritzner wrote that the state had shown no evidence that the law’s prohibitions would protect perceived harm to the ag facilities or biosecurity.

He cited incidences of lawmakers saying they wanted to curb activists from spreading damaging or false information about the facilities and agriculture production practices.

“Plaintiffs and their amici—the Freedom of Information Council and Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism—frame this legislative trend within the context of an on-going tension between members of the news media and the agriculture industry,” he wrote.

The Freedom of Information Council and Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism brief in support of the lawsuit stated that the public wants consumer news about the food they eat and how it is produced, but that the Iowa law hampered reporting unflattering news.

Under the law, a first conviction would be a serious misdemeanor while a second conviction would be an aggravated misdemeanor.

“This is an important victory for free speech in Iowa,” Rita Bettis Austen, the ACLU Iowa lead attorney in the case, said at the Des Moines news conference, which ACLU Iowa showed via Facebook Live. “These laws, which penalize investigative reporting on agricultural facilities, have proliferated in the last decade across the country, not just here in Iowa.”

Bettis Austen said, “The ag-gag law was clearly a violation of Iowans’ First Amendment rights to free speech and it silenced advocates and ensured that animal cruelty, unsafe food safety practices, environmental hazards and inhumane working conditions went unreported for years.”

Bailing Out Benji executive director Mindi Callison said the ruling was groundbreaking. “Because of it, hopefully other states are able to overturn their ag-gag laws,” Callison said.

The Associated Press reported that the Iowa Attorney General’s Office is considering an appeal. The AP also reported an Iowa Pork Producers Association statement on the ruling: “Iowa pig farmers will continue to properly care for their animals and provide safe and secure working conditions for their employees. And, they will fight those who try to destroy or attack their livelihoods one case at a time.”

Federal courts also have struck similar laws in Idaho, Utah and, late last year, Wyoming, and a case challenging a restrictive law in North Carolina is pending.

This story was produced by the Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism-IowaWatch, a non-profit, online news website that collaborates with news organizations to produce explanatory and investigative reporting.