North Carolina’s highest court will not consider an animal cruelty lawsuit targeting a Burke County chicken producer. The decision Friday allows lower court rulings to stand favoring Case Farms.
Animal activist group Legal Impact for Chickens sued the company in 2023. The complaint alleged that Case Farms violated North Carolina’s animal cruelty law in its daily operations.
The case attracted attention from the North Carolina Farm Bureau and industry groups representing poultry and pork producers.
The state Supreme Court’s petition rulings list Friday indicated that justices denied LIC’s request in June to revisit a unanimous decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
“Plaintiff seeks to use the Petition as a vehicle to restate arguments rejected by the Court of Appeals,” Case Farms’ lawyers wrote in July. “The Court of Appeals correctly determined that section 19A-1.1 of the Protection of Animals Act (the ‘PAA’) exempted Defendants from suit under the PAA because they were engaged in the lawful activity of selling and producing poultry products.”
“Plaintiff’s proposed interpretation of the PAA would require courts to consider every single act involved in the regular operations of North Carolina commercial livestock processing, creating undue burden for agribusinesses and the North Carolina judiciary,” the court filing continued. “The Petition reveals that Plaintiff simply disagrees with the ruling of the Court of Appeals and does not satisfy any of the grounds necessary for this Court to grant discretionary review.”
Legal Impact for Chickens failed to show that the case “concerns matters of significant public interest,” Case Farms’ lawyers wrote. “Instead, Plaintiff relies on self-serving allegations that agribusinesses will suddenly be incentivized to engage in cruel practices and that small farmers and good actors will be harmed by the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the exceptions.”
“These arguments are pure conjecture,” the court filing added. “More importantly, it ignores the significant burden that Plaintiff’s interpretation of PAA would place on farmers around the state and the district courts. Applying Plaintiff’s reading of the exceptions would create an avalanche of litigation against agribusinesses that would harm their operations and flood the district courts with vexatious litigation.”
The animal rights group argued that the Appeals Court’s decision “will have an impact on the interpretation of criminal animal cruelty statutes and disregards the legislative intent of the PAA,” Case Farms’ lawyers wrote. “In reality, Plaintiff is merely displeased with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute and fails to show that it will negatively impact the enforcement of criminal statutes.”
“Moreover, the opinion honors the legislative intent of the General Assembly by properly construing the statutory language of the exception, which was included to insulate commercial farmers from frivolous litigation by activist groups – like Plaintiff,” the court filing added.
The Appeals Court’s decision “does not conflict with any Supreme Court precedent,” Case Farms’ court filing explained. “[T]he Petition reflects that Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeals and wants a third bite at the proverbial apple.”
Legal Impact for Chickens filed a complaint in 2023 alleging that Case Farms routinely subjected baby chickens to cruelty in its daily operations. A trial judge dismissed the case in December 2023. The Appeals Court ruling in May upheld that decision.
“The Court of Appeals’ opinion on this case of first impression is inconsistent with this Court’s decisions requiring courts to construe remedial statutes broadly and statutory exemptions narrowly,” wrote lawyer Daniel Gibson in the state Supreme Court petition. “The Court of Appeals decision also conflicts with statutory definitions and legislative intent.”
The suit is based on Chapter 19A of North Carolina’s General Statutes.
“Chapter 19A is a broad remedial act ‘for the protection and humane treatment of animals,’ but the Court of Appeals erred by interpreting it narrowly and construing its exceptions broadly — an error that defeats legislative intent by immunizing most people who work with animals from civil and criminal liability for animal cruelty,” Gibson wrote.
The lawsuit alleges that Case Farms defendants “’disregard poultry industry norms,’” Gibson added. “Defendants had the second-highest number of USDA violations in 2017, and their unjustified, unnecessary cruelty continues today.”
“From when they hatch chickens to when they slaughter them, Defendants are routinely cruel to chickens in ways that are ‘not necessary for, nor conducted for the primary purpose of, providing food for human or animal consumption,’” the petition continued. “Defendants’ cruelty ‘kills young chicks prematurely, preventing them from growing large enough to be used for food or other intended purposes.’ This cruelty includes recklessly crushing chicks’ necks between trays and running chicks over with vehicles.”
“Defendants’ cruelty is ‘done repeatedly … pursuant to standard operating procedure at [Defendants’] hatchery,’” Gibson wrote. “There are ‘documented acts of abuse and neglect nearly every day’ at the hatchery.”
The state Protection of Animals Act exempts “lawful activities” conducted for poultry production or “for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption,” Appeals Court Judge Jeff Carpenter wrote in May.
“Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are not exempt from suit under the PAA because their individual systems and processes are either unlawful or not conducted for the purpose of producing poultry or food for human or animal consumption,” the court opinion continued.
“[W]e disagree,” Carpenter wrote.
“[T]he trial court interpreted the relevant provisions of the PAA and ultimately ruled that Defendants’ pertinent activity — commercial raising and slaughtering of chickens — was exempt from suit. Indeed, in the Order the trial court determined the PAA was ‘inapplicable to Defendants.’ This language demonstrates the trial court’s determination of Defendants’ exemption status was rooted in statutory interpretation,” Carpenter explained.
Legal Impact for Chickens and Case Farms asked the court to focus on different aspects of the poultry production operation.
“Plaintiff seeks to narrow our focus from Defendants’ operation as a whole to individual steps within Defendants’ poultry-production process,” Carpenter wrote. “According to Plaintiff, every stage in Defendants’ operation should be analyzed for its lawfulness and purpose. Conversely, Defendants argue they are exempt because their entire operation — commercial raising and slaughtering of chickens — is both lawful and conducted for the purpose of producing food for consumption.”
Appellate judges sided with Case Farms’ interpretation.
“[T]he phrase ‘lawful activities’ under the PAA means one’s collective acts or behaviors, not contrary to law,” Carpenter wrote. “Accordingly, we find the PAA to be unambiguous and apply the statute as written.”
“The process of raising and slaughtering chickens is comprised of a series of tasks conducted for a common purpose — to produce poultry,” he added. “Therefore, contrary to Plaintiff’s interpretation, we hold the exempted activity is not each individual step within the commercial poultry-production process, but rather the entire process itself.”
“Defendants’ operation involves a collective series of tasks in pursuit of a common outcome — to produce and sell poultry products for profit. Accordingly, we conclude the General Assembly intended to exempt Defendants’ commercial poultry-production operation as a whole from suit under the PAA, provided the operation is permitted by law,” Carpenter wrote.
“Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not and cannot support a claim that Defendants’ operation of raising and processing poultry is illegal or otherwise prohibited by law, the trial court properly granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss,” Carpenter concluded.
Judges John Arrowood and Tom Murry joined Carpenter’s decision.
The panel heard oral arguments in the case in February.
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 producer.