Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A.... Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A. magna cum laude from Amherst College. His academic writing focuses on the questions surrounding new food products, specifically plant-based and cell-based meat, and is available on SSRN. He is a founding editor of Oyez's newest platform about U.S. Supreme Court arguments, Oral Argument 2.0. He also writes guest columns for Justia's Verdict and performs legal research for the Animal Law Podcast. Read more about Jareb Gleckel Read More
Every month, One Green Planet reports on major issues in animal law. To keep July exciting, we’re highlighting a case against the FBI—a case brought by a promising new animal-rights organization, Animal Partisan (AP).
It may or may not surprise readers that, in many ways, the government props up animal agriculture. To put a number on it, “Worldwide, governments provide approximately $540 billion annually in direct subsidies to agriculture, with most of these payments going to “Big Ag” (i.e., industrial animal agriculture controlled by a few large corporations, akin to “Big Oil”),” according to Faunalytics. Consider also that the federal government oversees “checkoff” programs—programs that promote animal-ag commodities like beef, pork, and dairy.
The FBI, then, is the rule rather than the exception in its Support of animal agriculture. As Animal Partisan explains:
In an appearance before the Senate in 2005, the FBI declared that “Animal rights extremism” was “one of the FBI’s highest domestic terrorism priorities.” In 2017, the FBI expended considerable resources—including as many as eight FBI special agents—conducting raids on multiple small animal sanctuaries searching for piglets taken from a Smithfield-owned factory farm in Utah by Direct Action Everywhere. A 2019 internal FBI memo alleges that Animal rights activists have increased the spread of viral pathogens in factory farms. The FBI’s interest in Animal rights activists is regularly on display as documented visits to the homes of Animal rights activists and attempts to elicit information regarding the movement.
In light of the FBI’s long history of pushing back against animal-rights activists, it’s the exact question that intrigued Animal Partisan. AP wanted to know, in particular, about the FBI’s involvement in two major animal-ag conferences held by the North American Meat Institute (NAMI)—the self-described “oldest and largest trade association representing U.S. packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal and turkey.” Why is the FBI participating in a conference with meat-industry executives about “key strategies” for “continuous improvement in animal care”?
Fortunately, the law has a mechanism for extracting government records. FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, gives the public a right to request access to records from any federal agency. Unfortunately, when AP requested records from the FBI, the FBI stonewalled. First, the FBI claimed that the records AP was requesting did not exist. When AP provided additional information about the records, the FBI stopped denying their existence—but still refused to provide them. Now (you guessed it), AP is suing the FBI for the information the Bureau is withholding.
Even though the government, as a default, must turn over public records under FOIA, it doesn’t need to disclose all records. The law enumerates particular exemptions, one of which applies to law enforcement records. The exemption, properly applied, is both logical and important—the government does not need to disclose records that are part of a pending or reasonably anticipated law enforcement proceeding if the release would harm the proceeding. So, if the FBI is investigating a serial killer, it need not tip its hand.
The FBI denied AP’s FOIA request under this law enforcement exemption. The question now is . . . why? How are records about public conference attendees and panelists part of a pending or anticipated law enforcement proceeding?
In its Complaint, AP challenges the FBI’s decision. At a minimum, says AP, the FBI can redact sensitive information in the documents—but it can’t simply refuse to comply with the public records law. One Green Planet will keep you posted as the lawsuit proceeds.
Easy Ways to Help the Planet:
Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox! Sign up for daily news from OneGreenPlanet.
Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.

Comments: