## Facts

- An animal-advocacy organization secretly recorded video at an Idaho dairy showing workers dragging, beating, and kicking cows, prompting national attention.
- In response, an industry group drafted and supported legislation enacted as Idaho Code § 18-7042, criminalizing certain “interference with agricultural production.”
- The statute made it a crime to access an agricultural production facility by misrepresentation and to make audio or video recordings at such facilities without the owner’s consent, with felony penalties for some conduct.
- Animal-protection organizations, investigators, and journalists alleged the law chilled their ability to conduct undercover investigations and gather information for public dissemination about agricultural practices.
- Plaintiffs sued state officials in their official capacities, seeking to invalidate § 18-7042 under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and moved for summary judgment on those claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Idaho Code § 18-7042 imposes content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on protected speech, and if so, whether it survives strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
2. Whether § 18-7042 violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminatorily targeting disfavored speakers and viewpoints without a legitimate governmental basis.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims.
- The court held Idaho Code § 18-7042 unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
- The court concluded the statute targeted the gathering and creation of information for communicative purposes on matters of public concern.
- The court found the law content-based and viewpoint-based, triggering strict scrutiny, and held it not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest.
- The court further held the law reflected hostility toward animal-welfare and whistleblower speakers and lacked a rational relationship to legitimate state interests, violating equal protection.
- Enforcement of the statute was barred in its then-existing form.

## Legal Principles

- Laws that single out speech based on subject matter (content) or favor or disfavor particular messages (viewpoint) are presumptively unconstitutional and generally subject to strict scrutiny.
- Creating recordings and gathering information for public dissemination about matters of public concern are protected First Amendment activities; statutes chilling such conduct can violate the Free Speech Clause.
- A state does not have a compelling interest in insulating heavily regulated industries from public scrutiny; property and privacy interests must be pursued through narrowly tailored measures.
- Where existing laws address asserted harms (e.g., trespass, fraud, theft), a speech-restrictive statute that broadly criminalizes investigative newsgathering is not narrowly tailored.
- Equal protection is violated when the government discriminates against a class of speakers or conduct tied to protected expression based on hostility toward a viewpoint, and when such discrimination lacks even a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose.

## Conclusion

The district court invalidated Idaho’s ag-gag statute because it criminalized undercover access and recording in a way that discriminated by content and viewpoint, burdened speech on matters of public concern, and irrationally targeted disfavored speakers in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.


Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter, 118 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (D. Idaho 2015)