Their new neighbors are 10,000 hogs. Do they have the right to sue?

Should the Iowa Supreme Court declare unconstitutional a law that shields large animal feeding operations from lawsuits?

That’s the question the justices heard Monday night during oral arguments in Honomichl v. Valley View Swine. Its answer is likely to have an impact on the number and type of nuisance lawsuits brought by rural residents against the operators of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

A pair of hog confinements built in Wapello County in 2013 prompted this lawsuit. But the broader question is who can sue, and why.

Iowa Code 657.11 shields CAFO operators from lawsuits for nuisance resulting in a loss of enjoyment of the plaintiffs' property unless one of two conditions applies: The operators are either violating state or federal law, or they are "unreasonably and for substantial periods of time (interfering) with the person's comfortable use and enjoyment" of their property and failing to comply with accepted industry best practices.

Landowners can still sue for damages if they can prove they suffered a loss in property value, and the court's ruling won't change that, regardless.

None of the plaintiffs in this case are alleging that the confinements violate the law or have caused their property value to diminish. Their argument is under Article 1, Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution, which lays out Iowans' inalienable rights, including acquiring, possessing and protecting their property.

The plaintiffs all lived in their current homes before the CAFOs were built. They say the smell has prevented them from holding events, barbecuing, opening windows, sitting on their porches, walking on trails or riding ATVs outside, and that they've experienced symptoms including burning in their throats and eyes, diarrhea, lethargy and nausea, depression and embarrassment.

MORE:No more livestock confinements until Iowa water improves, group says

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a summary judgment by Wapello County District Court Judge Annette Scieszinski, who ruled the law unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case.

The plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to go further and declare the law unconstitutional in all circumstances, but lawyers for the defendants, Valley View Swine and JBS Live Pork, say the court should affirm the law as constitutional and a reasonable exercise of the Legislature's power to create regulations. They say the confinements were built more than twice as far away from the plaintiffs as required by state regulations and that confinements shouldn't be held liable if they're following the law.

Iowa courts have struggled with the issue since a 2004 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, Gacke v. Pork Xtra, which found the law unconstitutional only as applied to the facts in that case.

Kristine Tidgren, director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, said the Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify its guidance on the law.

Whatever the court decides will have implications for both animal agriculture and rural residents, Tidgren said. Several cases are on hold until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.

"I would think that if the law were declared facially unconstitutional, we would see a lot more" nuisance lawsuits, Tidgren said.

On the other hand, if the law was found to be constitutional and the court issued clearer guidance, "I think the opposite would be true," she said. "We would have less nuisance litigation, probably less litigation that would go to court."

The intent of the current law, enacted in 1995, is to make sure livestock producers are not burdened by frivolous lawsuits. Plaintiffs can be sanctioned if they bring a lawsuit that a court deems frivolous.

MORE:Does air coming from hog confinements contain manure?

"Iowa is an agricultural state, and there are certain laws that are enacted in a state that is so heavily dependent on agriculture that are for the protection of that business," Tidgren said.

But Jennifer De Kock, a lawyer at Wandro & Associates who represents the plaintiffs, said sometimes residents don't have any choice except to sue if they feel they're unable to use or enjoy their property.

"There has to be a way to raise hogs and not infringe on your neighbor’s private property rights," De Kock said. "There has to be a way to raise hogs and be a good neighbor."

De Kock said a ruling of blanket unconstitutionality would save the courts time in future cases instead of trying to decide whether the law is valid under the circumstances of each case.

"We wouldn’t be spending over a year, two years litigating whether the law is or is not unconstitutional as applied," she said. "We would have a perfectly reasonable common law nuisance standard."

William Roemerman, a lawyer at Elderkin & Pirnie who is representing Valley View Swine, said whatever the court's decision, a clarification of the law will benefit everyone.

"Whatever the court decides, it will clarify the law to be applied in these cases, which will be a benefit to farmer and non-farmer litigants, simply because it’s always better to know what the law is than to not know," he said.