NC Appeals Court rules for chicken producer in animal cruelty dispute

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a chicken production operation and against animal activists in a dispute over state animal cruelty rules.

The unanimous opinion Wednesday from a three-judge Appeals Court panel affirmed a trial judge’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit from a group called Legal Impact for Chickens.

The group had filed a complaint in 2023 alleging that Burke County-based Case Farms routinely subjected baby chickens to cruelty in its daily operations.

“To summarize, Plaintiff alleged Defendants’ treatment of chickens at various stages throughout the hatching and slaughtering process amounted to animal cruelty,” Judge Jeff Carpenter wrote for the unanimous court. “Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants: (1) starve chicks that hatch early in the setter room; (2) allow chicks to overheat and die in the Hatchery; (3) allow chicks to be maimed and crushed by the conveyor-belt system; (4) crush chicks between transport trays; (5) allow chicks to fall to their death through the floor of transport trucks; (6) intentionally run over chickens with their vehicles; (7) allow chickens to overheat in the transport trucks; (8) bury injured chickens alive under dead chickens; and (9) boil chickens alive. Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants’ hatching and slaughtering operation as a whole was illegal or otherwise prohibited by law.”

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,” Carpenter wrote.

“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 business.

“NC Appeals Court rules for chicken producer in animal cruelty dispute” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.