Estate of Big Gobble the Turkey
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia
76 U.Va 11 (2023)
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
The deceased bird in question (herein referred to by his nickname, “Big Gobble”) appealed to this Court for a stay of execution on Eighth Amendment grounds. Unfortunately, while this Court was on Thanksgiving recess, Big Gobble was killed, packaged, basted, stuffed, put in an oven, and consumed. Still, this Court will hear the case as a § 1983 claim to determine if Big Gobble’s estate is entitled to damages. We dismiss that claim and clarify our reasoning for future turkey requests.
Before the official ceremony at the White House, Big Gobble was one of the finalists for the turkey pardon. He was paraded through the West Wing, but was met with little praise. Chief of Staff Ron Klain Xed (formerly known as “tweeted”), “This is the ugliest bird I’ve ever seen.” Attorney General Merrick Garland said, “Any jury in the country would mark this bird for death.” And, upon laying eyes on Big Gobble, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. began telling a story about how much better the birds looked when he was a child in Scranton. Needless to say, there was no presidential pardon for Big Gobble.
Big Gobble’s estate first argues that death is a cruel and unusual punishment for the simple crime of being a turkey in November. Second, they contend that the method of execution is “deliberately designed to inflict pain.”[1] And third, they make the novel argument that this punishment is unusual because the cooked turkey tastes so bad. While we agree that turkey tastes awful, we find that this execution does not offend the Eighth Amendment.
The law is no stranger to mistreating animals. See Pierson v. Post (“[The] fox is a ‘wild and noxious beast’ . . . His depredations on farmers and on barnyards, have not been forgotten; and to put him to death wherever found, is allowed to be meritorious, and of public benefit.”)[2] Just like the fox, the turkey is a “noxious beast.” He roams our lands, plucking at shrubbery to support his unnaturally large abdomen, and blocking roads to imperil drivers. Unlike the peaceful duck, he offers no beauty or friendliness. And the turkey cannot even instill a sense of hope or wonder by flying above us. Based on this long tradition of mistreating animals, this Court will not find an exception for turkeys within the Eighth Amendment. It was “meritorious” for a family to feast on Big Gobble over Thanksgiving.
This case can also be decided on my increasingly popular method of substantive honor analysis. See Students for Fair Socialization v. Student Bar Association (“Our constitutional order was fundamentally changed when the Honor System was established in 1842. And with that, the Framers protected some inalienable rights by putting them outside of the Honor Code’s ambit.”).[3] In 1842, there was no clemency for turkeys. Their rights were not recognized beyond what was necessary to service our needs for dry, tasteless protein. Therefore, the Eighth Amendment cannot provide any safe haven for turkeys, regardless of our modern sensibilities.
While there is some merit to the claim that this punishment deliberately inflicts pain, that is true of all our modern eating habits. Were this Court to find for Big Gobble on that point, our lower courts would be inundated with ducks not wanting to be forcibly fed so that we can eat their diseased livers, cows not wanting to be separated from their young so that we can enjoy our seasonal Chick-Fil-A milkshakes, and pigs not wanting to be carved up in thousands of ways to satisfy our hunger. We are not prepared to let courts become another regulatory agency on food processing.
The best argument that Big Gobble’s estate puts forward is that the punishment is unusual because it forces Americans to eat a mediocre entree on such a nice holiday. Still, given how noxious the turkey is, the infinitesimal joy that I experience from having some turkey within my stuffing and mashed potato mix is enough to justify the punishment.
Since there was no constitutional violation, the § 1983 claim is dismissed. Though a scheduling conflict prevented us from doing anything before Big Gobble’s execution, we confirm that the result would have been the same had we heard this appeal in a timely fashion. Turkeys will find no sanctuary in this Court.
Rice, J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment that the § 1983 claim was properly dismissed but write separately to clarify that I would limit the scope of today’s decision to that of factory-farmed, domesticated turkeys only. Whereas these turkeys are kept in small cages and fed to a point where they cannot walk nor reproduce[4], I cannot agree with the estate’s argument that putting these birds to death is cruel. Further, I do not find the taste of turkey too unusual.
Still, today’s decision goes too far in that it applies broadly to all turkeys, including the wild ones from which I would be more inclined to hear an Eighth Amendment claim against those who hunt them for sport.
Allard, J., concurring in the judgment.
While I would also dismiss Big Gobble’s claim, the majority’s reasoning in this case is a stark departure from the principles that ought to guide this Court. Today, by bald judicial fiat, the majority declares that the Eighth Amendment offers no protection for the humble turkey. I write separately to express my strong disapproval of this conclusion and to underscore the importance of preserving the sanctity of our traditions, even those involving our feathered friends.
The Constitution vests in the President the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” This power is absolute and unreviewable, a check on the potentially arbitrary or unjust application of the law. That power has, in recent decades, been extended to the Thanksgiving turkey, as a symbolic gesture of goodwill to turkeys and other fowl throughout the nation.
No pardon was issued in the case before us today. But that does not absolve the Court of its duty to afford the full protections of our Constitution to all litigants, including the humble turkey. The denial of Big Gobble’s Eighth Amendment rights sets a dangerous precedent, declaring that the Courts have no role to play in maintaining the uneasy truce between man and bird. The majority, apparently perceiving this case as trivial or lighthearted, asks the country to simply bear the risks of its disruption to the delicate balance of nature.
But most of all, the majority's decision raises serious methodological concerns in its mischaracterization of the Thanksgiving meal. Innumerable recipes are available that produce a moist and flavorful turkey. Why else would millions of Americans flock to the Thanksgiving table each year, often even for seconds? It is regrettable that the majority did not enjoy a well-prepared turkey this year. But its culinary failings cannot extinguish the constitutional rights of American bird-citizens.
Even if it were true that turkey is invariably dry, it is not the role of this Court to question the wisdom of American traditions. Such inquiries threaten to erode trust in our country’s democratic foundations and undermine the delicate balance established by the framers. We must resist the temptation to treat the turkey’s pardon as a mere holiday spectacle, for in doing so, we risk devaluing the turkeys that so generously give their lives for our consumption.
In conclusion, it is evident from the majority’s disdain for Big Gobble and other turkeys alike that their decision was motivated by bird-based animus. Rather than insult the decedent in this case, I would have recognized that bird common law does not permit § 1983 claims by turkeys to be filed during the month of November. I fear that the majority’s cavalier attitude toward the turkey in this case may extend beyond Eighth Amendment claims to cast a shadow on the sanctity of turkey clemency itself. To turkeys and turkey enjoyers alike, know that you have at least one friend on this Court.
Allen, J. dissenting.
It is always painful to dissent, as disagreeing with such learned colleagues is an unenviable position to find oneself. It also forces me to actually write an opinion, which is much more work than simply signing my name onto an opinion written by one of (the clerks of) my peers. Even so, none of this pain compares with the damage inflicted on the nation by the Court today — continuing reliance on turkeys as the centerpiece of a holiday meal.
Turkey is a truly mediocre meat, offering little in the way of flavor or satisfaction, and yet the public is forced to pretend to enjoy it every year. While fine when ground and seasoned, or even on a typical sandwich found in a quotidian lunchbox, a full bird is only good insofar as it is impressive to look at and certainly falls short of the reward one deserves on a national holiday. Ham is truly the better dish to be served, but chicken also presents an acceptable alternative if one wants to preserve a semblance of the pomp and circumstance surrounding the turkey’s presentation.
All this is to say that turkeys should not be killed for our Thanksgiving meals — not out of any charitable impulse to the bird, but as a public service to society. Because the Court today both blesses the use of turkey and reinforces a system which will only continue to breed and slaughter them for consumption in perpetuity, I cannot sign on. In the face of inaction by this Court, I can only appeal to the good graces and common sense of my fellow Americans to seek better alternatives than turkey when planning your next holiday.
---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
[1] Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 94 (2008).
[2] 3 Cai. R. 175, 180 (N.Y. 1805) (Livingston, J. dissenting).
[3] 76 U.Va. 2 (2023).
[4] Turkeys: Torture on the Holiday Table, PETA, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/turkeys-factory-farmed-torture-holiday-table/.