The animal rights group PETA sued the Southwest Wyoming Regional Airport on Tuesday claiming officials violated the U.S. Constitution when they rejected an ad depicting a moo-cow carry-on that urged airline passengers to fly without leather luggage.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court names the airport, a joint operation between Sweetwater County and the city of Rock Springs, and airport director Devon Brubaker. The action claims violations of the First and 14th amendments, which protect free speech and due process respectively, and asks for an order requiring the airport to run the ad “on the same terms offered to other advertisers.”
The ad depicts a leather handbag with a cow’s head and legs.
“Was She Killed to Make Your Carry-On?” the ad asks. “Cruelty doesn’t fly | Choose vegan.”
Airport director Brubaker would not comment Wednesday, saying his agency had not yet been served legal papers and would need time to study the suit before deciding how to respond.
“PETA believes that like humans, cows are intelligent, sensitive, and social individuals with distinct personalities who crave companionship and play.”
PETA through attorney Megan Hayes
The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said in its suit the airport is a public place and cannot limit speech — in this case a billboard-type ad — based on the content of that speech. “Defendants’ rejection of PETA’s proposed ad was not reasonable and amounted to discrimination based on viewpoint,” the suit states.
Further, rejection of the ad was wrong because it was not based on a narrowly tailored reason that was promoting a compelling government interest. Also, any ad policy the airport does have does not provide adequate notice of “what speech is prohibited and invites arbitrary and/or selective enforcement,” the 21-page filing states.
Dead-animal check in
PETA’s suit alleges the airport has a long-demonstrated “anti-animal rights bias,” because it posts promotions for rodeos on its Facebook page. PETA and other groups have “denounced rodeos as inherently cruel,” the suit states.
The anti-animal rights bias also is evident in the airport decor, which features a mounted elk, deer and moose head, according to photographs included in the filing. The taxidermy heads are evidence of the airport’s “eagerness to promote the practice of killing animals for sport,” the suit states.
The allegations set PETA up to argue that the agency rejected the ad because it disagrees with the animal rights group’s point of view, which PETA says violates the Constitution.
The suit pits vegans head-on against a statewide culture and economy that raises 1.3 million cattle, many for slaughter and consumption by people and for making hides into products like leather carry-ons.
“PETA believes that like humans, cows are intelligent, sensitive, and social individuals with distinct personalities who crave companionship and play,” the suit states. “By presenting this image, PETA seeks to prompt travelers to consider the conscious animals who suffer as a result of leather production and encourages them to refrain from purchasing luggage derived from the cruel treatment of animals.”
The airport has violated any policy it might have regarding appropriate and inappropriate advertising, the suit claims, supporting PETA’s contention that rejection was “motivated by nothing more than unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.”
Fake paper trail?
The federal civil suit also alleges that as soon as airport director Brubaker learned about PETA’s June 2022 request to advertise, he created a policy “that might provide a pretext for his rejection of PETA’s ad.” To do that, Brubaker allegedly contacted the Casper and Jackson Hole airports for copies of their advertising policies and modified one by placing his airport’s logo on it.
But that “purported policy,” as PETA called it, “was not effective as of the time of this rejection,” the suit alleges, because “it had yet to be presented to or approved by the Board.”
“He allegedly took another airport’s advertising policy — which prohibits ads dealing with ‘social, political, religious, or rhetorical issues’ — slapped SWRA’s name on it, then cited that brand-new ‘policy’ as cause to reject PETA’s ad,” the animal rights group said in a statement.
In addition to an order to run the ad, PETA is seeking a declaration from the court that the advertising policy or interpretation violates the First and 14th amendments, a permanent injunction against the airport preventing it from rejecting the ad, nominal damages, costs, fees and “any other relief that this Court deems just and proper.”
Attorney Megan Hayes of Laramie filed the suit for the Virginia-based animal rights group.
Their is actually animal cruelty going on that PETA should focus on but this isn’t one of them. Ridiculous is correct language.
Good grief! Who can afford real leather luggage! Not me.
No matter how you view the message, this looks like it has a clear Constitutional merit, given that public airports receive federal funding and navigation assistance. It may also be an Interstate Commerce issue.
REALLY? We need a lawsuit to settle this? Really kind of stupid and waste of court time and attorney money. But what else is expected out of a 501 organization that relies on donations to function
Ridiculous