Backyard Chickens, Big Principles: Why Maine’s “Right to Food” Fight Matters Far Beyond One Coop
When local rules make self-provisioning impossible, the promise of “food sovereignty” is just words on paper. This case forces Maine—and the country—to decide what that promise really means, today.
On paper, Maine is the first state in America where the right to grow and raise your own food is written into the constitution. In practice, a Calais family says they can’t legally keep enough hens on their quarter-acre lot to feed their kids. That contradiction is now headed to court—and the outcome could ripple across every backyard garden, goat shed, and small urban homestead in the country.
The case in a nutshell
Kamiwan and Paul Oliver keep a small flock for eggs and meat. Calais adopted a 2024 “domesticated livestock” ordinance that, among other constraints, limits coops to ½-acre or larger lots, imposes 20-foot setbacks, and caps flocks at six birds—standards that functionally exclude most in-town lots like the Olivers’ and, they argue, nullify Maine’s constitutional Right to Food. With help from the public-interest law firm Institute for Justice, they’re suing under that amendment. Local outlets confirmed the suit in mid-September 2025 and summarized the ordinance’s practical effect: on typical in-town parcels, compliance is a non-starter.
Why this is a big deal—today
This isn’t a quaint “chicken drama.” It’s a live test—now—of how far a constitutional right reaches when it meets city hall. If Maine’s Right to Food means anything, it should protect self-provisioning at household scale while still allowing reasonable sanitation and nuisance rules. If a court upholds acreage and setback formulas that make backyard hens impossible for most residents, the message to homesteaders is blunt: your “right” exists only where lot sizes and politics are favorable. That outcome wouldn’t just wound Maine’s amendment; it would chill efforts in other states to enshrine similar rights.
What the Right to Food actually says
Adopted by voters in November 2021, Maine’s Article I, §25 recognizes an “unalienable right to food,” including the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of [one’s] own choosing, subject to limits against trespass, poaching, or abuses of property and public resources. That’s not a license to be a bad neighbor; it’s a guarantee that peaceful, at-home food production is a protected liberty interest—unless government can show its rules are truly necessary and narrowly tailored to those legitimate aims.
“Food sovereignty” vs. local vetoes
Separate from the constitutional right, Maine passed a 2017 Food Sovereignty law letting municipalities loosen state licensing for direct, local producer-to-consumer sales. That statute was about commerce. The constitutional Right to Food is about personal self-reliance. They’re related but distinct: towns can choose to deregulate local sales, but they cannot regulate household food production out of existence if the constitution protects it. That’s the heart of the Olivers’ argument—that Calais’s size and setback rules amount to a de-facto ban on a core, constitutionally protected activity.
The farmers’ and homesteaders’ angle
Backyard eggs don’t replace a dairy, and a few meat birds won’t fill a rancher’s freezer. But the principle overlaps: if cities can make household food production unworkable through “neutral” dimensional rules, the same logic can squeeze small farm stands, micro-dairies, and diversified urban farms whenever neighbors complain. We’ve seen how quickly one nuisance incident—loose birds in Calais—can trigger blanket restrictions that penalize everyone instead of targeting the problem. Reasonable enforcement exists (no roaming livestock, rodent-proof feed, clean manure management) without barring families from hens altogether.
What a sensible balance looks like
Performance-based standards, not acreage tests. Regulate outcomes (odor, vermin, waste handling, predator-proofing) rather than setting lot sizes that only affluent landowners can meet.
Proportionate flock limits. A blanket “six birds” might be arbitrary on a ¼-acre lot with good management and setbacks; it might be too many on a postage-stamp lot without them.
Enforce nuisances directly. Punish the behavior (uncontained birds, negligent sanitation), not the right itself.
Those tools are already common in cities that successfully allow hens. Calais didn’t take that path—and that’s why this case matters.
Beeswax Candles Now Available at Yanasa Trading Co
The consequences of this ruling
If the family wins: Cities across Maine will have to tighten their tailoring—craft rules that actually fit typical lots and target nuisances. Expect copycat challenges to acreage-based bans in other towns, and clearer state guidance on what “reasonable regulation” means under §25.
If the city wins: Expect a green light for municipalities to nullify home-scale food production in dense neighborhoods via setbacks/lot sizes. Maine’s Right to Food would survive as symbolism, not substance—invoked in speeches, ignored in zoning codes. That would echo nationally and slow the broader “food sovereignty” movement.
Do Americans have a basic right to food sovereignty?
At the federal level, no—there’s no explicit constitutional “right to food.” Rights to farm, hunt, fish, or garden are largely state-level creatures that vary by jurisdiction. Maine is the first to constitutionalize a personal Right to Food; other states have considered right-to-garden laws and “right to farm” protections that primarily shield existing agricultural operations from nuisance suits, not household hens. That’s why Maine is a bellwether. If one state proves you can protect homestead-scale food freedoms and maintain public health, others will follow. If not, expect the movement to stall.
Defend the right to farm—starting at home
Food freedom isn’t just a slogan for off-grid dreamers. It’s a hedge against inflation, brittle supply chains, and the slow deskilling of everyday life. When a family can’t legally keep a flock sized to produce breakfast in a town built on quarter-acre lots, that’s not public health—that’s class-coded exclusion. Maine voters didn’t pass the Right to Food to celebrate a theory; they passed it to protect practical self-reliance. Courts should read it that way.
Let Calais write rules that work—rodent-proof storage, clean coops, no roaming, reasonable setbacks that fit real parcels, and enforcement for the few who create problems. But don’t let a clever ordinance erase a constitutional promise.
Because if a state that wrote food freedom into its constitution won’t defend a family’s breakfast, what chance does the next gardener—or the next small farm—have?