Petition seeks top NC court’s review of chicken cruelty case

An animal rights group is petitioning the North Carolina Supreme Court to hear its lawsuit against a Burke County chicken producer. A unanimous state Appeals Court panel ruled against the group in May.

The case attracted attention from the North Carolina Farm Bureau and groups representing state poultry and pork producers.

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 last month 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 filed Tuesday. “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.

The post Petition seeks top NC court’s review of chicken cruelty case first appeared on Carolina Journal.

The post Petition seeks top NC court’s review of chicken cruelty case appeared first on First In Freedom Daily.