Animal cruelty suit pecks at NC agribusiness exemption

North Carolina’s law governing “protection of animals” carves out an exemption for food production. The animal cruelty law does not target farms and businesses providing meat for restaurants and grocery stores.

Yet a lawsuit at the state Court of Appeals tests the limit of that exemption. A group called Legal Impact for Chickens alleges ongoing cruelty at a Burke County poultry operation.

The case hinges on appellate judges’ interpretation of NC General Statute § 19A-1.1(3). They must decide whether Case Farms engaged in “lawful activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.”

The suit alleges “intentional cruelty, with the full knowledge of Case Farms management,” lawyer Dan Gibson argued on Feb. 11 before a three-judge Appeals Court panel.

“Among other things, it alleges that defendants run over chicks, starve them, crush them, trample them underfoot, transport them in trucks that it knows they will fall out of, leaves them to overheat and die, and buries them alive,” Gibson added.

These actions cannot be considered “lawful activities,” Gibson argued.

A trial judge rejected Legal Impact for Chickens’ arguments in December 2023. The appellate panel also expressed skepticism.

“If we take your … client’s interpretation of the statute, doesn’t that then basically do away with the entire exemption about poultry?” asked Judge John Arrowood.

“If you look at the activity as a whole — as alleged in the complaint — the activity as a whole is routinely and regularly violating the law,” Gibson said. “When you’re routinely and regularly violating the law, you don’t get to say we’re engaged in a lawful purpose anymore.”

Judge Jeff Carpenter questioned Gibson’s interpretation of “lawful activities.”

“The judge can say the process of producing chickens for human consumption is what I’m determining is lawful or not,” Carpenter said. “You are getting into the details on your side. You want the law to be interpreted about each of the individual pieces of the process.”

“Chicks are born, and they starve,” Gibson said. “And then when we get to the end of the process, they’re boiled alive. There’s cruelty throughout the entire process.”

“The exceptions look pretty broad to me as I read them,” Arrowood said. “It looks like perhaps even the Farm Bureau might have written the exceptions.”

Case Farms’ lawyer emphasized the lawsuit’s potential negative impact.

“By enacting the exemptions in question before you, the General Assembly attempted to prevent exactly this type of intrusion and monitoring of agribusiness in this state,” argued Rebecca Cheney.  

The company denies the lawsuit’s allegations. Even if the disturbing actions were true, “we fall squarely within the exemptions,” Cheney said. “Everything alleged in the complaint is in the … process of hatching, raising, and slaughtering poultry.”

If appellate judges rule against Case Farms, more lawsuits could target other poultry operations and individual farmers across North Carolina, she said. Judges could “terminate ownership of millions of chickens and millions of hogs.”

“Depending on the pockets of the plaintiff,” farmers and agribusinesses could face repeated court hearings, Cheney warned. “What they’re asking for is a system that would permit individuals, activists … to make our District Court judges continual monitors … of agribusiness throughout this state.”

Government inspectors already have authority to order changes at operations like Case Farms, Cheney said. The company also wants to avoid bad publicity that could scare customers away.

“They have no interest in killing chickens before they can be processed and sold,” Cheney added. “They have no interest in allowing employees to behave as they are alleged to have behaved in this complaint.”

The dispute has attracted attention from the North Carolina Farm Bureau and groups representing poultry and pork producers. A friend-of-the-court brief from the Farm Bureau and North Carolina Pork Council projected a “serious threat to North Carolina’s animal agriculture economy.”

The state ranks fourth in production of broiler chickens, second in turkeys, and third in hogs. Farm-animal production “accounts for almost 75% of the State’s animal farm income,” according to the brief.

“The Animal Cruelty Act’s agricultural exemptions ensure that the State’s farmers and agribusinesses are not forced to engage in protracted animal cruelty litigation,” Farm Bureau lawyers argued. A court decision against Case Farms “would nullify the General Assembly’s intent to shield farmers and agribusinesses from litigation relating to ordinary farming and production practices and make them vulnerable to sensationalized allegations asserted by animal rights activists who seek to put them out of business.”

The pending ruling from North Carolina’s second-highest court could have far-reaching consequences for animals and agribusiness for years to come.

Mitch Kokai is senior political analyst for the John Locke Foundation.