[
[A lawsuit filed March 16, 2014, in Idaho Federal District Court challenges the constitutionality of Idaho’s newly-passed Interference with Agricultural Production law. The law is better known in Idaho by its informal nickname, the “ag gag law”.
A news summary of the lawsuit appeared in an online IdahoReporter.com article by Austin Hill dated April 18, 2014, entitled Idaho farm protection bill faces legal scrutiny.
The formal complaint, filed in the federal district court under case number 1:14-cv-00104- BLW, is titled “Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v. Otter et al“. Here is a link to the 52-page complaint.
The complaint introduces the lawsuit by providing some historical background for it. It specifies the plaintiff’s allegations which they hope to be able to prove at trial. The complaint articulates the Court’s jurisdiction and venue to hear the lawsuit, and it goes into detail to describe each of the plaintiffs standing to sue the defendants. It similarly identifies the defendants and explains why the defendants were named in the lawsuit.
The complaint provides the factual background for the lawsuit including the statutory overview and the purpose of the Idaho’s statute. Interestingly, it discusses the plaintiffs’ general and specific interests in investigating alleged violations involving agricultural operations. It also discusses injuries that some of the plaintiffs’ representatives have incurred during investigations of agricultural operations. It outlines how each of the plaintiffs believes they are being harmed by the law, and it identifies the plaintiffs’ claims for relief, the relief the plaintiffs hope will result from the lawsuit.
The complaint concludes with four causes of action. These are the very general group of facts giving rise to the bases for the lawsuit. The first cause of action alleges that the language of the new law is overly broad and prohibitive in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The second cause of action alleges that the new law imposes prohibited content and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of that same First Amendment. The third cause of action asserts that the new state law is in conflict with federal laws and therefore is in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Plaintiffs also assert that the new state law violates the US Constitution by preempting the federal False Claims Act, the federal Food Safety Modernization Act, and the federal Clean Water Act. Finally, the fourth cause of action asserts that the new state law violates the US Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses by impinging on the plaintiffs’ free speech and by directing animus toward a particular group of people (animal rights groups).
Readers should understand that the complaint is a formal and structured device the plaintiff uses to get a dispute in front of the Court. The complaint is prepared by the plaintiff and describes the harm done to the plaintiff, explains how the defendant caused the harm, and asks the court to order relief. The assertions in the complaint must be proven with evidence at trial. It is timely served on the defendant and gives the defendant notice of the allegations the plaintiff hopes to prove in court. For citizens who are interested in better understanding Idaho’s new Interference with Agricultural Production law as well as the objections to it, the complaint is a reasonably complete starting point.
On April 3, 2014, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (the lawsuit) with the Idaho Federal District Court. The defendants’ 21-page Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss accompanied the motion. The Court will set a schedule for briefs and to hear argument and rule on the motion.
ADDENDUM on April 21, 2014, at 11:28 AM: The Idaho Dairymen’s Association, Inc., has filed a Motion to Intervene as Party-Defendant in this lawsuit. The motion was accompanied by an Affidavit of Applicant for Intervention in Support of Motion to Intervene as Party-Defendant and by a Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene as Party-Defendant. An intervenor, in this case the Association, asks the Court’s permission to enter an action because it has a personal stake in the outcome. The Court is not obligated to accept the motion.
That is pretty ugly. They might as well have said, “Eat Spinach.” However, I do not condone the unethical treatment or abusive practices of animals, even as a food source. If the plaintiffs have the ‘goods’ or the films ect. that may expose the ugliness, I don’t understand how Idaho can make that exposure a crime. We see worse in some movies that win Oscars. Additionally, I do not want some Vegan going to extremes, calling me an animal killer because I like a good New York steak or a nice omelet with crispy bacon.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 19, 2014 @ 5:10 pm
Stebbijo,
The value for the public in the complaint, aside from being the vehicle to initiate court action, is that it identifies the people involved, their interests in the action, the issues the plaintiffs hope to be able to prove with a preponderance of the evidence at trial, and the remedy the plaintiffs hope the Court will impose if it agrees with them. The key word is “hope”.
It’s relatively easy to make assertions and allegations in the complaint, but it’s another to be able to prove them to the Court’s and jury’s satisfaction. But since the complaint is filed with the Court, that helps rein in totally outlandish and completely baseless assertions. Or at least it should.
Of course the defendants’ Motion to Suppress asserts there is no basis for the lawsuit and it should not even be given a full trial. The Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss is the defendants’ first effort to dispute the plaintiffs’ assertions in the complaint. It outlines the defendants’ point of view about why the plaintiffs’ point of view doesn’t have enough merit to proceed to trial.
In this particular case, both the plaintiffs’ complaint and the defendants’ motion to dismiss help us readers begin to see more clearly the framework of the lawsuit.
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2014 @ 6:48 am
Part of the affidavit from the dairymen is interesting to me.
“7. …After the ISDA and the local law enforcement authorities investigated and charged the offending employees…”
Does this mean that the effect of the ag gag law is to cover-up future criminal conduct???
Comment by up river — April 21, 2014 @ 3:48 pm
up river,
You may be getting at the same question I had when the law was proposed during the legislative session: It seems to me that the wording of the ag gag law prevents either the ISDA or law enforcement from conducting undercover operations without the property owner’s permission. (See I.C. §25-3519) In other words, the prohibitions of the new law seem to exclude undercover law enforcement operations as well as undercover evidence-gathering by private citizens. If that is so, then yes, the new ag gag law would make it easier for a property owner to cover up criminal conduct.
Comment by Bill — April 21, 2014 @ 4:02 pm