A federal appeals court has rejected an Iowa activist group’s argument that the state’s so-called “ag gag” law violates members’ free speech rights by preventing them from recording video of protests on private property.
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement’s argument that residents should be allowed to record protests on privately owned property that’s typically open to the public when the owner asks them to leave but doesn’t specifically ask them to stop recording.
“While novel, this contention is unsustainable,” the appeals court said in a ruling filed Thursday, April 23. Judge L. Steven Grasz wrote the decision, joined by Judges James Loken and Raymond Gruender.
Brenda Brink, a member of the Des Moines citizens group, said in a statement that the “ruling will further restrict the rights of everyday people who want to tell the truth about industrial food systems. It hampers our ability to communicate the actions and results of peaceful protests.”
Big Ag, Brink said, wants to “hide the real story of factory farm livestock production from consumers. But we will never give up.”
In a statement responding to the decision, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, whose office represented Gov. Kim Reynolds and other public officials in defense of the law, said Iowa farmers and businesses “should be able to operate without fear of trespassers.”
Bird noted that courts have turned back two other challenges to Iowa ag gag statutes.
“Today’s decision is the third and definitive victory defending Iowa’s laws that prevent trespassers from lying to get onto a property and then secretly record on it,” she said. “We have fought to defend our laws that strengthen security for farmers and property owners.”
Here’s what to know about the ruling.
Iowa seeks to criminalize activists’ efforts to record alleged animal abuse
The state has passed four laws since 2012 seeking to criminalize activists’ efforts to gain access to and record video of alleged animal abuses by Iowa pork producers, prompting legal challenges by animal welfare and citizen activists groups.
The April 23, decision involves one of those laws passed in 2021. It created an enhanced “surveillance-trespass” offense for people who, while trespassing, place or use a camera or other recording device. Under the new law, the first offense is considered an aggravated misdemeanor, carrying an $8,540 maximum fine and up to two years in jail. A second offense is a Class D felony, with a $10,245 maximum fine and up to five years in jail.
In 2024, the Eighth Circuit court agreed with the state and overturned lower court rulings against that law and another prohibiting lying on employment applications to gain access to livestock facilities, saying they were not unconstitutional restrictions of free speech.
But the appeals court rejected state officials’ arguments that the groups suing lacked standing and that their claims “were unripe” — meaning the alleged harm had not occurred — sending that portion of the case back to U.S. District Court for consideration.
That left the door open to challenge specific applications of the law. This time, the district court ruled against them, and Iowa Citizens for Community Involvement appealed.
Iowa CCI says state law chills members’ free speech on property that’s open to the public
Iowa CCI said the state’s prohibition on using cameras while trespassing chills members’ speech when applied to prevent them from recording on private property that is otherwise open to the public after being asked to leave but not to stop recording.
The group told the court its “members intentionally record themselves committing ordinary trespasses, ‘particularly… at political and corporate sites,’ to draw attention to their activities.” For example, the court noted, the group said its “members have been arrested for trespassing in a number of settings: blocking a construction site, protesting in a bank lobby, and protesting in the offices of elected officials.”
Iowa CCI then sends “the video recordings to media outlets to increase their advocacy efforts [and] draw attention to their message,” the decision said. It added that the group also “posts this content on its website and social media ‘to communicate the message of the protests to ICCI’s members and the public, and thereby encourage people to join the work.’”
The group “alleges its members are willing to suffer the consequences for ordinary trespass but the heightened penalties for trespass-surveillance have chilled their speech,” the decision said.
Property owner who ousts trespasser doesn’t want to stop recording? ‘Nonsensical,’ court says
The appeals court said Iowa CCI had standing to bring its initial challenge and that its challenge “is ripe” because its members’ speech “is arguably protected by the First Amendment.”
But does it violate the CCI’s members First Amendment rights? The appeals court considered two arguments:
“Based on ICCI’s own allegations, its members plainly want to engage in the exact misconduct (the 2021 law) is narrowly tailored to proscribe,” Grasz wrote for the court.
“Its members’ recordings implicate Iowa’s important state interest in protecting owner’s property and privacy rights, these interests would be served less effectively without the statute, and the statute does not proscribe substantially more speech than necessary to achieve Iowa’s legitimate ends,” he concluded.
Staff writer William Morris contributed to this article.
Donnelle Eller covers agriculture, the environment and energy for the Register. Reach her at deller@registermedia.com.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Federal court backs Iowa farmers in ag‑gag fight over secret recordings
Reporting by Donnelle Eller, Des Moines Register / Des Moines Register
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
