WASHINGTON (AP) – On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the appeal submitted by North Carolina, associated with an ongoing conflict between the state and animal rights organizations over a law designed to thwart undercover agents from obtaining documents or capturing videos at farms and other workplace environments.

The verdict works in favor of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who challenged the state law implemented in 2015. PETA intended to initiate an undercover operation at testing labs affiliated with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill but was deterred due to the risks imposed by the ‘Property Protection Act.’

The ruling announced by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February, with a 2 – 1 majority, decided that the law couldn’t be applied to suppress PETA or any similar group engaged in newsgathering activities via undercover methods.

“Our society is entitled to be aware of illicit and unethical activities,” commented David Muraskin, an attorney representing PETA and other parties opposing the law. “Unveiling unsafe or inhumane practices and working conditions is crucial to keeping detrimental organizations liable for their harmful actions.”

The law resembles the various ‘ag-gag’ laws — aimed to silence undercover activists investigating and recording instances relating to the animal agriculture industry — that have been invalidated by multiple courts across the nation over issues of free speech. As of yet, the Supreme Court has abstained from getting involved.

The majority consensus from the 4th Circuit has, in fact, moderated a 2020 ruling from a trial court judge, who had invalidated four aspects of the law connected to surreptitious activities.

Attorney General Josh Stein‘s state lawyers and UNC-Chapel Hill‘s chancellor, also a defendant in the case, had pleaded with the Supreme Court to intervene. The same applies to the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, listed as another defender of the law during court proceedings.

Stein’s office imparted to the justices that the discrepancies among circuit decisions pertaining to whether audio-visual recording can be universally considered protected speech or if they can be unprotected on private property without the consent of the owner.

Federation lawyers also communicated their fears over the verdict of the 4th Circuit, opining that it might potentially leave private property owners vulnerable and defenseless against infiltration by individuals, provided they claim their intent was newsgathering.

Muraskin stated on Monday that overturning the current decision could potentially diminish the intimidation of whistleblowers and undercover investigators of various types, inclusive of those who probe instances of sexual harassment.

Meanwhile, Stein, the premier law enforcement officer for the state, refrained from commenting further than stating his office was in the process of scrutinizing Monday’s decision, as per a spokesperson’s statement.