DES MOINES -- Saying they are not overly restrictive of free speech, two of Iowa's so-called "ag gag" laws -- which create penalties for individuals who trespass on agricultural property with intent to create financial harm -- are constitutional, a federal appeals court ruled this week. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit delivered similar rulings Monday in two cases, reversing a lower court decision in both. A district-court ruling on a third lawsuit remains pending, the Iowa Attorney General's Office said. The appeals court rulings mean those state laws could soon become enforceable. But an attorney for one of the plaintiffs expressed confidence opponents would prevail upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republican-majority Iowa Legislature has made four different attempts since 2012 to pass such the laws, which supporters say are needed to protect farmers from individuals who unfairly portray their farming practices in undercover recordings. Animal welfare advocates say the laws restrict the ability of advocates to shine a light on the mistreatment of animals. People are also reading... Waterloo man arrested in 2022 grocery store parking lot homicide Brass Tap building for sale in CF, but owners will not close, have second location in mind Waterloo woman arrested after children found playing on roof Cedar Falls police charge man with bestiality in incident last month Waterloo couple arrested in connection with sexual abuse of girl Cedar Falls teen earns associate degree just before receiving her high school diploma Woman arrested for stealing more than $1,600 worth of items from Walmart Black Hawk County residents upset with rural land zone request for new businesses Long-time Waterloo West coach Dr. Anthony W. Pappas in hospital after medical emergency City begins process to reobtain land after developer failed to complete project Two transported for minor injuries in Cedar Falls Main, First streets crash Cork's Grocery closes after more than 40 years in business Vacant home in Waterloo 'complete loss' after it catches fire Saturday night Police say 17-year-old killed sixth-grader, wounded five in Perry, Iowa school shooting; suspect is dead Flirts Gentleman's Club, city reach agreement in nuisance case Both lawsuits that the appeals court ruled on were brought by Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Bailing Out Benji and the Center for Food Safety. One of the appeals court rulings addressed a law that would make it illegal to use a camera while trespassing on agricultural property. The appeals court said that law is sufficiently tailored and not overly broad. "Without a doubt, trespassing is a legally cognizable injury because it harms the privacy and property interests of property owners and other lawfully-present persons. Trespassers exacerbate that harm when they use a camera while committing their crime," the court wrote. "The Act is tailored to target that harm and redress that evil. Because the Act's restrictions on the use of a camera only apply to situations when there has first been an unlawful trespass, the Act does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the state's legitimate interests." David Muraskin, an attorney with FarmSTAND, one of the plaintiffs, said the appeals court's decision splits with similar rulings in other district courts. Muraskin said that gives him confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately will side with the plaintiffs. The appeals court's other ruling addressed a law that would make it illegal to lie on an employment form in order to gain access to an agricultural facility. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | RSS Feed | Omny Studio "The statute filters out trespassers who are relatively innocuous, and focuses the criminal law on conduct that inflicts greater harm on victims and society," the appeals court wrote in one of its rulings. "In our view, the Iowa statute is not a viewpoint-based restriction on speech, but rather a permissible restriction on intentionally false speech undertaken to accomplish a legally cognizable harm." That ruling essentially ends the legal challenge to that law, Muraskin said. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird praised both of the appeals court's rulings. "Today's court rulings are a landmark victory for Iowa farmers and property owners," Bird said in a statement. "For too long, our farmers have battled with trespassers, people lying to get jobs, and hidden recording devices. But not any longer. With today's win, we will enforce Iowa's agriculture trespass laws, strengthen security and put those fears to rest." An attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund said the groups will "continue to litigate" the constitutionality of the trespass law. "That law imposes a heightened penalty for individuals like undercover investigators, journalists, or activists who use or place a camera on private property," Animal Legal Defense Fund Senior Staff Attorney Caitlin Foley said in a statement. "The Animal Legal Defense Fund and its co-plaintiffs will continue to fight laws that unfairly target the speech of organizations advocating for animals and the public's right to know about abuses that happen behind the closed doors of factory farms." Gov. Kim Reynolds and Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig also issued statements praising the appeals court's rulings. "This is a win for both Iowans and the country," Reynolds said. "No longer will people be able to gain access or employment to agricultural production facilities with the intent to cause physical injury or economic harm. We will always stand up for the security and safety of our farmers and their land." Said Naig, "The Legislature and Gov. Reynolds enacted these laws to safeguard our ag community and protect our food security. It is welcome news that Iowa producers can now be protected from trespassers, and it sends a clear message to those who maliciously target our livestock farms." Barb Kalbach, CCI board president and a fourth-generation family farmer from Dexter, criticized the rulings. "Through these rulings, the courts suggest that ag gag laws should be interpreted more narrowly in Iowa, which says to me that they think Iowans should have less protections when it comes to telling the truth. We wholeheartedly disagree with that notion," Kalbach said in a statement. "We believe Iowans must have our rights protected -- the right to engage in free speech rooted in truth, to protest and to protect our communities. CCI members will never quit fighting for those rights." 0 Comments Love 0 Funny 0 Wow 0 Sad 0 Angry 0 Be the first to know Get local news delivered to your inbox! Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.