SANTA ROSA, CA – A Sonoma County judge on Wednesday rejected a request from prosecutors to impose a gag order on animal rights activist Zoe Rosenberg, allowing her to continue speaking publicly about her pending criminal case involving the rescue of four sick chickens from a Perdue-owned slaughterhouse.
The ruling, issued by Superior Court Judge Kenneth Gnoss, was first reported by the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). The group said the judge called the proposed order “overbroad and vague by any constitutional standard.” The decision emphasized that public discussion around the case had included statements from both Rosenberg’s supporters and her critics—including California Poultry Federation President Bill Mattos, who previously called her actions a “terrorist act.”
Rosenberg, 22, is a UC Berkeley student and investigator with DxE. She faces one felony conspiracy charge and four misdemeanor counts—including trespassing and theft—stemming from a June 2023 incident at Petaluma Poultry, a slaughterhouse owned by Perdue Farms. According to DxE, Rosenberg and other activists entered the facility to document animal conditions and rescued four chickens—Poppy, Ivy, Aster, and Azalea—who were reportedly suffering from severe neglect.
In a statement released through DxE, Rosenberg defended her actions and praised the judge’s decision. “The District Attorney wants to silence me and send me to jail so that the public never hears about the horrid conditions at Perdue’s Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse,” she said. “I’m glad that I’ll be able to continue telling the stories of Poppy, Ivy, Aster, and Azalea, the four chickens who were suffering without care when I rescued them, and who today are safe, loved, and thriving.”
Her legal team opposed the gag order, arguing it would violate Rosenberg’s First Amendment rights. Chris Carraway, staff attorney at the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project and Rosenberg’s counsel, praised the court’s decision. “The State sought to restrict Ms. Rosenberg from discussing her case through a blatantly unconstitutional gag order,” Carraway said. “The Court rightly denied the request, citing her First Amendment right to speak.”
Carraway, who previously won a 2023 case involving animal rescue charges in Merced County, noted the growing public scrutiny of industrial farming practices and the legal backlash against those trying to expose them.
In a related development, prosecutors have dropped one of the theft charges against Rosenberg, according to DxE. Advocates interpret this move as a strategy to prevent the introduction of evidence about the rescued animals’ condition, which could bolster Rosenberg’s defense.
The case has drawn widespread public interest. More than 13,000 people have signed a petition urging Sonoma County District Attorney Carla Rodriguez to “prosecute animal cruelty, not animal rescue.” The case has also reignited public debate about the treatment of animals in industrial farming and the legal risks facing activists who engage in direct rescue operations.
Petaluma Poultry, a subsidiary of Perdue Farms—the nation’s fourth-largest poultry producer—has denied all allegations of animal cruelty. The company, which supplies major chains including Trader Joe’s, has come under fire from previous DxE investigations that cite unsanitary conditions and neglect.
According to DxE, The Press Democrat previously reported that Petaluma Poultry’s slaughterhouse has four times the national average rate of salmonella and campylobacter—two pathogens that can cause serious illness in humans. The publication later drew additional attention to the case by sponsoring a billboard in Petaluma reading, “Should she go to prison for rescuing a chicken?”
Rosenberg’s trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 15 in Santa Rosa. A pretrial hearing is set for June 13, during which her attorneys will argue the “necessity defense”—a legal doctrine that permits otherwise illegal actions if they were taken to prevent greater harm. In this case, the defense will argue that rescuing the chickens was necessary to prevent further suffering and to raise awareness of public health risks.
Judge Gnoss’s ruling marks a significant moment in the case, reaffirming the role of free speech in legal proceedings involving public interest issues. As the trial approaches, Rosenberg’s prosecution continues to serve as a flashpoint for debates about animal rights, food safety, and the criminalization of activism.
