REGIONAL- Minnesota’s deer farmers have come up short again in their legal battle to stop a state law that many say will drive their industry out of existence.
In a decision handed down July 28, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Minnesota Deer Farmers Association (MDFA) and dozens of individual plaintiffs. The court rejected arguments that the state’s 2023 law banning new deer farms and restricting the transfer of existing ones violates constitutional rights.
“There is no fundamental right to pursue the occupation of white-tailed deer farming,” the court wrote, brushing aside claims that the law infringes on due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision leaves in place a sweeping set of regulations aimed at stopping the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD), a fatal illness that affects deer, elk, and other members of the cervid family. The rules effectively begin a slow phase-out of Minnesota’s remaining deer farms.
Why the law changed
The new restrictions were passed during the 2023 legislative session, when lawmakers, citing years of concern over CWD, voted to tighten oversight of the deer farming industry. The changes barred the registration of new white-tailed deer farms and limited transfers of existing licenses to a single transaction, and only between immediate family members. The law also transferred oversight of deer farms to the Department of Natural Resources and imposed stricter, more expensive fencing requirements designed to prevent contact between farmed and wild deer.
Supporters of the law pointed to scientific studies and state reports pointing to the increased risk deer farms pose to CWD outbreaks, with captive herds sometimes showing higher infection rates than wild populations. In response, state officials argued that bold action was needed to protect Minnesota’s wild deer and the hunting economy that depends on them.
State wildlife officials have spent millions trying to research, monitor, and contain CWD, and have repeatedly identified infected deer farms as possible entry points for the disease into wild herds.
But for deer farmers, the law landed like a hammer.
“It’s very obvious that elected and state officials are trying to regulate us out of business,” MDFA President Scott Fier told Outdoor News in 2023.
Local impact
Among the farmers suing the state was Dennis Udovich of Greaney, who had previously operated a deer farm but voluntarily left the business. When he later expressed an interest in returning, he found himself blocked by the moratorium on new registrations.
Because Udovich had no immediate family members to receive a license from, he became a key figure in the case, illustrating how the law cuts off access to the industry for anyone not already tied to it by blood.
The court found that Udovich had standing to sue, since his desire to resume deer farming was both specific and immediate. But that didn’t change the final outcome. The appeals court sided with the state and left the law intact.
The court’s reasoning
The farmers argued that the law violated their rights to pursue a livelihood and that it unfairly advantaged those with family connections. They also objected to being subjected to costly fencing upgrades without what they saw as proper rulemaking procedures.
But the three-judge panel ruled that white-tailed deer farming doesn’t qualify as a fundamental right under the Constitution. Because of that, the law didn’t have to meet the highest level of legal scrutiny, just a rational basis. The court said Minnesota’s goal of stopping CWD clearly qualifies as a legitimate government interest.
“The Minnesota Legislature made a policy decision to allow family deer farms to continue for another generation,” the court wrote. Allowing a one-time transfer, they said, struck a balance between honoring family investments and phasing out an industry deemed too risky to expand.
As for the fencing issue, the court dismissed it entirely, saying the plaintiffs hadn’t shown that any one of them had been directly harmed by the rule at the time the case was filed.
The appeals court’s decision echoed U.S. District Judge John Tunheim’s earlier ruling, which called the impact on deer farmers “unfortunate” but “incidental” to the state’s larger goal of stopping disease.
The fight continues
Steve Porter, a longtime deer farmer in Kittson County and secretary of the MDFA, posted a video to Facebook shortly after the ruling. In it, he said he and his attorney plan to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.
“Our constitutional rights are under attack,” Porter said. “We’re gonna fight, fight, fight.”
Porter said he was recently cited for failing to meet the new fencing requirements, and that bringing his facility into compliance would cost him around $200,000. But given the Legislature’s stated intent to eventually phase out deer farming, he questioned the point of taking on that kind of financial burden.
“This issue – that it’s not a fundamental right to farm – is going to be used as case law by the far left to attack other types of agriculture,” he said.
A GoFundMe campaign to raise funds to help continue the court battle had received over $9,000 in contributions as of Tuesday.
The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and accepts only a small number. If the court declines to hear the case, the Eighth Circuit’s ruling will be the final word.
Meanwhile, Minnesota’s deer farming industry continues to shrink. State records show that there were more than 700 registered deer farms at the industry’s peak. That number has now dropped to just 79.
The DNR has consistently emphasized that protecting the health of Minnesota’s wild deer is central to its mission and has called the new regulations an important tool in fighting chronic wasting disease.