A suit by the University of Maryland's environmental law clinic that accuses poultry giant Perdue Farms and a small Eastern Shore farmer of pollution has angered Annapolis lawmakers, who are threatening to hold up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the university's budget.
Some lawmakers warn that the school could harm the region's fragile agriculture industry. They see farmers Alan and Kristin Hudson as victims of an over-reaching student project and want to send a message that the school should not use taxpayer funds to battle a small business during a recession.
"What I'm hoping is they'll have more sensitivity," said Sen. Thomas M. Middleton, a Charles County Democrat and farmer. "Engage in a lawsuit against an individual, struggling farmer? It could be any of us. It makes the rest of us wonder, 'Is it worth it?' Farming and agriculture on the Eastern Shore seems to be under attack." A lawyer for the Hudsons said it's unlikely that the couple can defend against the lawsuit without losing their land.
The criticism has stirred a larger debate over academic freedom at the state's premier law school, while raising old questions about the appropriate role for the General Assembly in influencing decisions there. Some legislators criticize the funding threat, and the law school dean said legislative demands could have a "chilling effect" on the clinic.
But Middleton and 34 other senators have demanded that the law clinic turn over a list of clients and expenditures for the past two years, threatening to hold up $250,000 if the university does not comply. A similar measure in the House would freeze $500,000 in funding.
Sen. Delores G. Kelley, a Baltimore Democrat, said the measure "will make our law school the laughingstock of higher education." Sen. Brian E. Frosh said the General Assembly was "holding a gun" to the school. Sen. James Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat, called the required report a move "straight from Communist China."
Robert R. Kuehn, president of a national association of clinical law educators, said the legislators' move is the latest political backlash against unpopular legal actions brought by such clinics. Kuehn, co-director of an environmental law clinic at Washington University in St. Louis, said the move was "an attempt to scare or intimidate the clinical law program."
The debate reminded many of last year's flap when some lawmakers threatened to withhold funding from the University of Maryland if it showed a pornographic film. The university pledged not show the film, but a student group held a viewing. The General Assembly asked the university to develop guidelines about such events.
And the dispute comes on the heels of a state audit that questioned $410,000 in bonus payments to a former law school dean. The president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore retired early because of his handling of the payments, and the former dean, Karen Rothenberg, has offered to repay a portion.
But it's not the first time an attempt has been made to limit the Maryland law school. In the 1980s, Gov. William Donald Schaefer barred the use of state funds to sue state agencies, but he later backed off, requiring only that state agencies be given a warning before being hauled into court.
Phoebe A. Haddon, the law school's dean, sent an e-mail to her students saying she is "deeply opposed" to the legislature's recent actions.
The Senate measure, she said, "interferes with the ability of our law school to control its academic program."
In an interview, Haddon said tying the information demand to the school's funding creates a "chilling effect" on how the clinic and its student lawyers operate. "I don't understand how it could not impact your judgment in the future, if you think somebody's watching you, asking you for information and tying it to their money."
The state funds about 30 percent of the law school's $46 million budget.
Clinic students in December helped prepare a suit at the behest of two environmental groups, the Waterkeeper Alliance and the Assateague Coastkeeper. The complaint alleged that the Hudson farm was fouling a drainage ditch leading to the Pocomoke River, about three miles away.
The groups also are seeking to hold Perdue Farms accountable, arguing that it bears responsibility for what happens on farms where its birds are raised.
The clinic, which has 10 students, is designed to give students practical experience and is frequently named as one of the top programs in the country. Participation in one of the school's 23 law clinics is a graduation requirement.
In the past, the environmental law clinic has challenged state regulations and has filed lawsuits over alleged pollution. It has a budget of $160,000, and 12 percent of that comes from state general funds.
Rena Steinzor, a law professor and former director of the environmental law clinic, said the clinics choose clients based on the educational value of the cases. They also focus on clients who otherwise would not have access to the legal system.
As an example, she said the clinic represented residents of Wagner's Point in Southeast Baltimore years ago when they negotiated to have the city relocate them because of health concerns over pollution from nearby industrial plants.
But some Shore lawmakers question whether a poultry farm like the Hudsons' is an appropriate target. At stake is a 400-acre farm that has been operating on the Eastern Shore for more than 100 years.
They also question whether the school should handle "hot button" issues such as environmental causes. "How would they feel if next session they were going to work on pro-life issues?" said Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr., a Shore Republican. "I'm sure people would say they don't want our taxpayer dollars being spent on people who just push pro-life and the death penalty."
A lot is at stake for Perdue - and for the poultry industry in general. The lawsuit is the first attempt in Maryland to hold a poultry company accountable for the environmental impact of the farms that raise birds under contract. The suit contends that Perdue dictates so much of how farmers handle their flocks that it effectively shares operational control of the farm.
Though lawmakers say they're upset about the clinic pursuing a small farmer, Scott Edwards, director of advocacy for the Waterkeeper Alliance, believes they're really acting at the behest of Perdue, the nation's third-largest poultry company.
Lawmakers say their concern lies with the Hudsons.
A Perdue spokesman declined to comment. Shortly after the suit was filed, Perdue Farms chairman Jim Perdue went to Annapolis to ask Shore legislators for help, calling the lawsuit "one of the largest threats to the family farm in the last 50 years," according to Capital News Service.
Later, Shore legislators complained to Gov. Martin O'Malley, raising their concerns in a meeting about farming issues. He said Thursday, "This sort of suit is something that an individual farmer can't defend against if the deep pockets have already decided in advance you're going to litigate as far as you can. I think that was the concern of the delegates - how do you strike that balance between the academic freedom and bankrupting a farmer who can't afford a law firm with unlimited funds?"
Hugh Cropper IV, the Hudson's family attorney, disputes the pollution accusation and says that the family farm is on the brink of closure. "We will have to go to Baltimore to get a litigation firm. I don't know how they will financially survive this."
He said the farm, which includes 80,000 chickens, has been in the family for generations.
The family must handle its legal bills alone, he said. "Perdue is not paying our legal costs."
An earlier version of this story misidentified state Sen. Charles M. Middleton. The Baltimore Sun regrets the error.