A federal judge on June 12 declared much of North Carolina’s “ag-gag” law in violation of the First Amendment’s free-speech provisions.

The North Carolina General Assembly passed the Property Protection Act in June 2015, denying then-Governor Patrick McCrory’s veto. The law prohibited individuals from intentionally gaining access to non-public areas and “engages in an act that exceeds the person’s authority to enter those areas is liable to the owner or operator of the premises for any damages sustained.”

The Property Protection Act differed from other states’ statutes by imposing civil penalties on the behavior in question, as opposed to violations of criminal code in other states. Thus, the law allowed employers to sue employees who plant hidden cameras, make secret recordings, capture or remove documents from their workplaces, or interfere with the “possession of real property,” regardless of industry in question.

Soon after the law was passed, eight organizations, including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), sued the state in federal District Court on grounds of constitutionality.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder’s in 2017 dismissed the case, calling the plaintiff’s complaint “hypothetical.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2018 reversed Judge Schroeder’s dismissal.

In arguments prior to Judge Schroeder’s recent ruling, the state of North Carolina argued that capturing photos or videos while trespassing is not protected under the Constitution.

The North Carolina Farm Bureau is an intervenor-defendant in the case.

Judge Schroeder then issued a 73-page ruling that overruled these arguments. “Defendants’ and intervenor’s attempt to categorize image capture and recording follow a trespass under the act as unprotected speech rests on a misreading of the law,” the ruling said. “It is true that free speech cannot be used to justify violation of laws and general application that operate independent of speech, such as trespass, copyright, labor, antitrust, and tax laws. But while the press enjoys no special status to avoid such laws, it does not mean the category of speech is thus unprotected.

Similar laws also have been found unconstitutional in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Kansas. Similar laws are currently in effect in North Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Alabama, and Montana.

The ruling can be found here.