A 23-year-old activist from the San Francisco Bay Area, Zoe Rosenberg was convicted of trespassing. She was charged with conspiracy after officers violently raided a northern California poultry processing plant, receiving national media attention for their actions. On June 13, 2023, Rosenberg along with members of the animal rights organization Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) went on the offensive. Their daylong action managed to infiltrate the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse, less than 40 miles north of San Francisco.
Rosenberg fervently testified that she needs to save four chickens. She called their circumstances churlish and knew she had to do something. Undercover and posing as company employees, Rosenberg and her team boarded a truck bringing thousands of live birds crammed into wooden crates. When she spotted four chickens in peril, she leapt into action. With determination, she picked them up, set them in buckets, and drove them to safety.
What began as a protest against a violent and unjust incident quickly became an enormous legal battle. Rosenberg was charged with a host of related crimes. These included two misdemeanor counts for criminal trespass, one count of tampering with a motor vehicle, and a fifth felony conspiracy charge. By the end of the trial, Rosenberg had been convicted on all 47 counts. She is now looking at over five years in prison.
Chris Carraway, Rosenberg’s attorney, said he was disappointed with the case in a statement, saying that the lawsuit.
“Sonoma County spent over six weeks and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to protect a multibillion-dollar corporation from the rescue of four chickens worth less than $25.”
Considering her conviction, Rosenberg and her defense have already said they plan to appeal the verdict. Five years after the verdict, this case has sparked profound disagreement within activist circles. It has raised critical questions about the rights of animals and corporate interests’ role in agriculture.
Rosenberg’s actions have drawn praise and scorn. Supporters of her work point out that, regardless of her methods, her heart was in the right place and she wanted to save animals from painful deaths. On the flip side, opponents argue that her tactics were unlawful and opened the door to perilous normalization of activist precedent.
Debates over what this case means for the future of animal rights activism are already raging. Both supporters and detractors of Rosenberg’s cause will be watching closely to see how the legal proceedings unfold and whether any appeals play out.