Supporters of the law argue it helps protects private property owners.

The plaintiffs also argue that the law violates the 14th Amendment because it is motivated by animosity toward animal protection advocates, which the lawsuit defines as a “politically unpopular group.”

The Idaho Attorney General’s Office — who will be tasked with defending the law — has already determined that the law would hold up to a First Amendment challenge.

Utah’s similar law is also being challenged in federal court on grounds that, among other things, it infringes upon activists’ free speech rights to expose cruelty but the judge has yet to come to a final decision. Idaho’s lawyers note that there isn’t a legal precedent to overturn the ag gag.

The state Attorney General’s Office, however, has been wrong before, said Hopkins.

Federal rulings have overturned laws — including the rules the governor signed restricting protests outside the Idaho Statehouse in response to the 2012 Occupy Boise movement — even though the state’s attorneys believed the rules were legal, she said.