We blogged on March 12, 2018, about the State of Iowa’s appeal of a District Court order finding that its so-called “ag-gag” statute violated the First Amendment. The statute made it a criminal offense to gain access to farm facilities by false pretenses or to make a knowingly false statement in an employment application. The purpose is to make it harder for undercover investigations to uncover animal abuse.
The Iowa attorney general has filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal. He argued that the State has a reasonable chance of prevailing on appeal. In United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), the Court stated, in dicta, that government could legally prohibit false statements intended to procure an offer of employment and one portion of Iowa’s ag-gag law did exactly that.
The attorney general also pointed to opinions in the 9th and 10th Circuits sustaining, in part, similar state laws. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court upheld a portion of an Idaho statute that prohibited false statements to obtain employment with the intent to cause economic or other injury. In Western Watershed Project v. Michael, 869 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2017), the Court upheld sub silentio a Wyoming statute prohibiting trespass on private property to obtain resource data.
The attorney general argued that Iowa would suffer irreparable harm if the order were not stayed. Iowa’s constitution offers special protection to private property, in some cases more protection than the federal constitution would recognize. The Iowa Supreme Court has held that government can prohibit speech on private property without violating the First Amendment. The attorney general also argued that the statute was necessary to promote biosecurity.
...
