- The North Carolina Court of Appeals will decide whether a group called Legal Impact for Chickens can sue a Burke County poultry producer for animal cruelty.
- A trial judge dismissed the lawsuit in December 2023. But the group argued before a three-judge appellate panel Tuesday that Case Farms engages in cruelty as it raises chickens for slaughter.
- Case Farms responds that an exemption in state law protects the company from the lawsuit. The North Carolina Farm Bureau and state groups representing poultry and pork producers support Case Farms' legal arguments.
North Carolina’s second-highest court wrestled Tuesday with a lawsuit targeting a Burke County poultry operation for alleged violations of the state’s animal cruelty law. Defendant Case Farms argues that an exemption in state law protects its operations from the suit.
It’s a case that has attracted attention from the North Carolina Farm Bureau and groups representing poultry and pork producers.
The lawsuit alleges “intentional cruelty, with the full knowledge of Case Farms management,” argued lawyer Dan Gibson during the 50-minute oral argument before the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Gibson represents plaintiff Legal Impact for Chickens.
“Among other things, it alleges that defendants run over chicks, starves them, crushes them, tramples them underfoot, transports them in trucks that it knows they will fall out of, leaves them to overheat and die, and buries them alive,” Gibson said of the suit.
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.”
The allegations push Case Farms’ operations outside that exemption, Gibson argued.
“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.”
A trial judge dismissed the lawsuit in December 2023, determining that Case Farms qualified for the legal exemption.
“The judge can say the process of producing chickens for human consumption is what I’m determining is lawful or not,” appellate Judge Jeff Carpenter said during Tuesday’s hearing. “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.”
“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 on behalf of Case Farms.
The company denies the lawsuit’s charges, but even if they were true, “we fall squarely within the exemptions,” Cheney added. “Everything alleged in the complaint is in the … process of hatching, raising, and slaughtering poultry.”
Cheney pointed toward potential consequences of a court ruling favoring Legal Impact for Chickens. More lawsuits could follow against poultry operations and individual farmers across the state, 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 added. “What they’re asking for is a system that would permit individuals, activists … to make out District Court judges continual monitors … of agribusiness throughout this state.”
“If the remedy is not appropriate under the animal cruelty statute, if we take the facts as true, how do they get fixed?” asked Judge Tom Murry.
State and federal inspectors can detect problems at Case Farms, Cheney responded. The company also wants to avoid the bad publicity that would hurt its prospects for selling chicken to Chick-fil-A or McDonald’s. Case Farms’ own economic interest weighs against cruel treatment of its birds, she added.
“They have no interest in killing chickens before they can be processed and sold,” Cheney said. “They have no interest in allowing employees to behave as they are alleged to have behaved in this complaint.”
Carpenter asked Gibson what remedy Legal Impact for Chickens is seeking from Case Farms.
“They need to employ a few more people in their slaughterhouse,” Gibson responded. “They need to employ a few more people in their hatchery. And if you add a few more people, … these sorts of mistakes would stop happening.”
The North Carolina Poultry Federation filed paperwork in November 2024 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.
“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.