- The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation and groups representing poultry and pork producers filed briefs this week at the state Appeals Court in an animal cruelty lawsuit targeting a Morganton chicken operation.
- The animal welfare group Legal Impact for Chickens targets the practices at Case Farms. LIC argues that multiple ways the company kills chickens fall outside food-producing companies' exemptions from animal cruelty laws.
- The North Carolina Poultry Federation argues in a new court filing that LIC's interpretation of state law "would upend the poultry industry."
The North Carolina Farm Bureau and groups representing pork and poultry producers are weighing in as the state Court of Appeals considers an animal cruelty lawsuit from Burke County. The suit targets Case Farms chicken operations in Morganton.
A trial judge dismissed the lawsuit from animal welfare group Legal Impact for Chickens in December 2023. LIC appealed that decision to North Carolina’s second-highest court.
The North Carolina Poultry Federation filed paperwork Tuesday to submit a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Case Farms. The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation and North Carolina Pork Council filed their own court document on the same day also supporting the chicken business.
The poultry federation’s court filing focused on LIC’s interpretation of the state law exempting food-producing businesses from animal cruelty protections. Under NC Gen. Stat. § 19A-1.1(3), state laws for the “protection of animals” do not apply to “lawful activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.”
“Plaintiff-Appellant, Legal Impact for Chickens (‘LIC’) presents an interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19A-1.1 (‘Statute’) that would upend the poultry industry by creating needless and tedious litigation, the costs of which would inevitably be borne ultimately by consumers,” according to the poultry group’s court fling. “As this issue appears to be one of first impression in this State, it is paramount that Chapter 19A of the North Carolina General Statutes be interpreted and applied correctly, giving full deference to the plain meaning and application of the law, as well as its intent and purpose.”
“No appellate court in North Carolina has ruled upon the issue presented in this case, so this will be a landmark decision affecting poultry farmers and processors across the state,” wrote lawyer Weldon Jones, representing the poultry federation.
The Farm Bureau and Pork Council “are interested in this case because Appellant’s interpretation of the Animal Cruelty Act’s agriculture exemptions represents a serious threat to North Carolina’s animal agriculture economy,” according to the group’s joint court filing. “North Carolina is a national leader in farm animal production, ranking fourth in the number of broiler chickens, second in turkeys, and third in hogs. Altogether, farm animal production accounts for almost 75% of the State’s animal farm income.”
“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. However, Appellant’s narrow reading of these exemptions, if adopted, 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,” wrote lawyers representing the farm and pork groups.
LIC is considered the appellant at the Appeals Court. Case Farms is the appellee. The poultry company filed its brief in the case on Nov. 4.
“[T]his appeal is not about whether Appellees’ conduct violates North Carolina’s animal cruelty law,” Case Farms’ lawyers wrote. “Rather, this case asks whether the General Assembly intended to allow any citizen to insert themselves into the operations of agribusinesses and to monitor and litigate over each step of food production throughout the state.”
“[T]he legislature could not have intended such a result,” Case Farms’ court filing continued.
The animal welfare group’s brief, filed on Sept. 3, urged the Appeals Court to reverse the trial judge’s decision and to allow the lawsuit to move forward.
“The Complaint alleges intentional cruelty not ‘conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption,’” wrote lawyer Daniel Gibson, representing LIC. “A complaint alleging cruelty to animals for a non-exempt purpose states a claim under Chapter 19A — even if the conduct is otherwise lawful. Conduct is also not exempt, even when it is for an exempt purpose, if it is unlawful. The Complaint alleged that Defendants’ cruelty was unlawful and for a non-exempt purpose.”
LIC lists “at least nine ways Defendants kill their chickens other than by slaughtering them,” including starvation, overheating, and intentionally running over chicks while transporting them.
“The Complaint alleges these actions are ‘not necessary for, nor conducted for the primary purpose of, providing food for human or animal consumption’ and that Defendants’ ‘employees … engage in the sadistic abuse of chickens.’” Gibson wrote.
LIC will respond to Case Farms’ written legal arguments before a three-judge Appeals Court panel considers the case. The case Legal Impact for Chickens v. Case Farms has not been scheduled for oral arguments.