The South Dakota Farm Bureau is in the midst of a trial that they initiated in U.S. District Court to overturn a 1998 state constitutional amendment designed to keep large out-of-state companies from farming or owning farmland in South Dakota. The Farm Bureau attacked this citizen initiative, known as Amendment E, out of fear that this anti-factory farm legislation may be duplicated in other states. The lawsuit argues that the amendment interferes with interstate commerce (a violation of the U.S. Constitution), discriminates against sectors of the agricultural industry, and denies out-of-state individuals the chance to do business in South Dakota.

In an apparent attempt to gain public relations points, a witness for the Farm Bureau testified that the amendment will turn the state into an agricultural backwater. "My conclusion is that South Dakota appears to be losing competitive advantage in livestock production," said Ohio State University economist Luther Tweetan. Lawyers defending the amendment said corporate factory farms hurt family farms and rural towns and threaten the environment.

The amendment came about after two years of wrangling in the state Legislature over how to provide adequate environmental safeguards for large-scale hog farms or other animal feeding operations. Although hogs are not mentioned in the amendment, one issue in the debate over the amendment was whether large out-of-state companies such as Murphy Family Farms of North Carolina should be allowed to own hogs in South Dakota and contract with South Dakota farmers to raise them. The trial is expected to end soon and U.S. District Court Judge Charles Kornmann will decide whether the amendment, approved by 60% of South Dakotans, is indeed constitutional.

Update: The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in August 2003, that Amendment E was unconstitutional.