Animal activists cannot sue Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, and one part of the Gem State’s agricultural protection law stands without review. But U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill is allowing a challenge to four other sections of Idaho’s “ag-gag” law to go forward on the basis of three legal concerns. In his ruling issued Thursday, Winmill found that the governor is not a proper defendant because plaintiffs are “not free to randomly select a state official to sue in order to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional statue.” Further, the challenge to a section of the Idaho law that prohibits the intentional damage or injury to agricultural facilities, operations, livestock, crops personnel, equipment, buildings or premises was dismissed. The judge said the rest of the Idaho law may be challenged because it restricts protected speech. ”Laws that restrict more protected speech than necessary violate the First Amendment,” Winmill wrote. “Because this question of whether section 18-7042 burdens more speech that necessary remains unanswered, the court will not dismiss (Animal Legal Defense Fund’s) First Amendment claim.” Winmill also said ALDF’s Equal Protection claim and preemption claims are “ripe for review.” The federal judge took 10 weeks since hearing Idaho’s motion on June 25 to dismiss the entire case before finally deciding which parts of it to hear and which parts to let go. Winmill has a reputation for preferring trials over writing opinions. Lawyer for the plaintiffs waiting on Aug. 25 for the judge to finally decide filed a consent motion to extend deadlines in the case “based on the current pace of the litigation.” Under the schedule they’ve suggested, the plaintiffs won’t disclose their experts to be called at trial until Oct. 28, 2014, a delay from Sept. 15, 2014. A similar state law in Utah is also being challenged in federal court in Salt Lake City.