Agricultural Law Update the Official Newsletter of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Agricultural Law Update The Official Newsletter of the _____________________________________________________________________________ Volume 29, Number 2 Fall 2017 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Inside This Issue Justin Newell Hesser, THE BATTLE OVER “AG-GAG” LAWS CONTINUES, WITH CHALLENGERS HAVING SUCCESS Todd J. Janzen, WILL SHARING AG DATA LEAD TO ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS? Drew Kershen, GMO FOOD – MANDATORY LABELING IN THE UNITED STATES Joe Willis, INTRODUCING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA NATURAL RESOURCE USER’S LAW AND POLICY CENTER Drew Kershen, AGRICULTURAL LAW BIBLIOGRAPHY – 2ND QUARTER 2017 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ THE BATTLE OVER “AG-GAG” LAWS CONTINUES by Justin Newell Heesser* __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Challengers of so called “ag-gag” operation interference.”3 The law made it Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert referred to laws obtained two victories from the a crime to obtain “access to an these different types of conduct as the courts this summer. In July, the federal agricultural operation under false district court in Utah declared that state’s pretenses” or to record images or sound statute unconstitutional because it violated from the operation under certain operation with the intent to record an the First Amendment.1 Then in circumstances.4 The Court in Animal image of, or sound from, the agricultural September, the Tenth Circuit dealt a blow operation; (ii) knows, at the time that the person accepts employment at the to Wyoming’s statute when it held that the 3 UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-6-112 agricultural operation, that the owner of “collection of resource data constitutes the (LexisNexis 2017). the agricultural operation prohibits the 2 protected creation of speech.” 4 UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-6-112(2) employee from recording an image of, or provides as follows: A person is guilty of sound from, the agricultural operation; Utah agricultural operation interference if the and (iii) while employed at, and while Utah’s “ag-gag” statute passed in person: present on, the agricultural operation, 2012 created a crime for “agricultural (a) without consent from the owner records an image of, or sound from, the of the agricultural operation, or the agricultural operation; or owner's agent, knowingly or intentionally (c) without consent from the owner 1 Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Herbert, No. records an image of, or sound from, the of the operation or the owner's agent, 2:13-cv-00679-RJS, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis agricultural operation by leaving a knowingly or intentionally records an 105331 (D. Utah July 7, 2017). recording device on the agricultural image of, or sound from, an agricultural 2 W. Watersheds Project v. Michael (W. operation; operation while the person is committing Watersheds II), No. 16-8083, 2017 U.S. (b) obtains access to an agricultural criminal trespass, as described in App. Lexis 17279 (10th. Cir. Sept. 7, operation under false pretenses; (i) applies Section 76-6-206, on the agricultural 2017). for employment at an agricultural operation. AG LAW UDPATE – FALL 2017 Page 1 lying provision and the recording exposing abuses at agricultural portion of the statute that made it provisions.5 facilities. The State has not argued this unlawful to cross private land to access The Court’s decision analyzed in as a government interest motivating adjacent or proximate land to collect detail whether the lying and recording the Act. And had it done so, it is not resource data prohibited them from prohibited in the law were protected clear whether that interest could be engaging in protected speech on public 14 speech under the First Amendment. sufficiently compelling to withstand property. The Court agreed stating the Because the act’s “false pretenses” strict scrutiny. But that question is for “fact one aspect of the challenged statutes 10 language could apply to “a host of trivial, another day. concerns private property does not defeat 15 harmless misrepresentations” the Court Wyoming the need for First Amendment strutiny.” concluded that at least some of the lies At issue in Western Watersheds The Court determined only that the statute covered by the law were protected Project v. Michael were statutes that at issue regulated protected speech—the speech.6 The Court also followed several created criminal and civil liability for first part of a three-part first amendment decisions from other district courts and individuals who trespassed upon private challenge—remanding to the district court circuits to determine that the act of property to collect research data or to determine the level of scrutiny to be recording is protected speech.7 crossed private property to collect applied and whether the statute survives 16 11 that scrutiny. After concluding that Utah’s law was research data on public lands. These Conclusion subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the laws had broad application and did not 12 The decisions in these two cases Court had little problem determining it just apply to the agriculture industry. followed Judge B. Lynn Winmill’s was a content-based restriction subject to The district court in July 2016 dismissed decision from August 2015 declaring strict scrutiny.8 Finally, the Court the plaintiffs’ challenge to this law, Idaho’s statute unconstitutional.17 The fate determined that the statute did not pass concluding individuals do not have a First of the Idaho statute is still pending in an strict scrutiny because of the health and Amendment right to engage in speech on 13 appeal to the Ninth Circuit, in what will safety interests given by the state were the private property of others. likely be the next decision addressing ag- “entirely speculative” and did not The plaintiffs in Western Watersheds gag laws. These cases are likely to pave constitute a compelling state interest.9 appealed part of district court’s ruling to the way for plaintiffs’ challenges to the Tenth Circuit. Plaintiff’s argued the Although the Utah statute was found similar laws in other states. unconstitutional, the court noted that it was not deciding one of the key issues in * Justin Newell Hesser is an attorney with Dray, the debate regarding ag-gag laws. The Dyekman, Reed & Healey, P.C. in Cheyenne, WY. Court recognized that the “complex policy Justin devotes his practice to helping agricultural questions” never materialized in the case businesses and families with their legal needs. He based on the interests asserted by the grew up on a ranch in Western Nebraska and applies state, and later noted: this knowledge on the ranch and in his legal practice. In his transactional practice, Justin negotiates oil What the Act appears perfectly and gas leases and surface use agreements; drafts tailored toward is preventing agreements and conducts due diligence for real estate undercover investigators from transactions, assists in curing mineral title defects, and prepares estate plans. Justin also helps families through trust administration or probate, including 5 Animal Legal Def. Fund, 2017 U.S. Dist. litigation involving fiduciary duties. Lexis 105331, at *9. 6 Id. at *20–21. Justin received his JD from the 7 Id. at *28–32. 10 Id. at 43. The State of Utah did not file Univ. or Wyoming with honors and 8 Id. at *35–39. an appeal of the district court’s summary is licensed in WY and NE. 9 Id. at *39-43. The state provided the judgment decision. Contact Justin at (307) 634-8891 following four government interests in 11 WYO. STAT. ANN. § 6-3-414; 40-27-101 or [email protected]. support of the law: “(1) the Act protects (2017). animals from diseases brought into the 12 For a discussion of the history of “ag- 14 facility by workers; (2) it protects animals gag” laws and four categories they fit W. Watersheds Project, 2017 U.S. App. from injury resulting from unqualified or within, see Jacob Coleman, ALDF v. Lexis 17279, at *8. 15 inattentive workers; (3) it protects Otter: What does it mean for other States, Id. at *9. 16 workers from exposure to zoonotic 13 J. Food L. & Pol’y 198, 201–06 Id. at *16. 17 diseases; and (4) it protects workers from (Spring 2017). Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter, injury resulting from unqualified or 13 W. Watersheds Project v. Michael, 196 118 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (D. Idaho inattentive workers.” Id. at *40. F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1248 (D. Wyo. 2016). 2015). AG LAW UDPATE – FALL 2017 Page 2 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ WILL SHARING AG-DATA LEAD TO ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS? by Todd J. Janzen* ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The use of cloud-based ag-data companies that have violated the Sherman agreed on a minimum price for fertilizer, software platforms is on the rise by Antitrust Act by sharing data and then it would be a clear case of price collusion. farmers, livestock producers, and using that information to raise prices. For By using ag-data pricing information ranchers. Nearly every company that sells, example, in US v. Container Corp. unknowingly entered by their farmers the markets, or buys goods from farmers, has shipping companies agreed to exchange result is the same. This could, therefore, developed a platform to capture price data among themselves, and