Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. & Sonny Perdue

Decision Date10 January 2020
Docket NumberNo. 19-5015,19-5015
Citation946 F.3d 615
Parties AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY and Avian Welfare Coalition, Appellants v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and Sonny Perdue, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Agriculture, Appellees
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

946 F.3d 615

AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY and Avian Welfare Coalition, Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and Sonny Perdue, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Agriculture, Appellees

No. 19-5015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 21, 2019
Decided January 10, 2020


Lyle D. Kossis, Richmond, VA, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was E. Rebecca Gantt, Norfolk, VA.

John S. Koppel, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Mark B. Stern, Attorney.

Before: Tatel, Pillard, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges.

Tatel, Circuit Judge:

Eighteen years ago, Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act to require the U.S.

946 F.3d 617

Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue standards "govern[ing] the humane handling[ ] [and] care" of "birds" not "bred for use in research." 7 U.S.C. §§ 2143(a)(1), 2132(g). Because USDA has yet to do so, two animal-rights groups sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that its failure to act amounts to arbitrary and capricious action in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), as well as "unlawfully withheld [and] unreasonably delayed" action in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The district court granted USDA’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in 1966 "to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment." 7 U.S.C. § 2131(1). To that end, "[t]he Secretary [of Agriculture] shall promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals," id. § 2143(a)(1), and "shall make such investigations or inspections as he deems necessary to" enforce the Act and its implementing regulations, id. § 2146(a). But not all animals are "animals" under the Act. Id. § 2132(g). Until the early 2000s, the statute defined the term "animal" as "any live or dead dog, cat, monkey ..., guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal ... [that] is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet." 7 U.S.C. § 2132(g) (2001). According to USDA, this definition "exclude[d] birds." Miscellaneous Amendments to Chapter, 36 Fed. Reg. 24,917, 24,919 (Dec. 24, 1971). For the animals that USDA believed the Act did cover, it issued a series of species-specific standards, some of which were required by the statute, see 7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(2)(B) (dogs and primates), and others that USDA thought appropriate for certain animals, see 9 C.F.R. pt. 3, subpts. A–E (cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and marine mammals). USDA also issued general welfare standards applicable to all other animals protected by the Act. See id. pt. 3, subpt. F.

In 2002, however, Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act to make clear that it did protect birds. Specifically, it excluded from the definition of "animal" "birds, rats ..., and mice ... bred for use in research." Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–171, § 10301, 116 Stat. 134, 491. USDA then acknowledged the obvious: "animal" now includes all birds not bred for use in research. See Animal Welfare; Definition of Animal, 69 Fed. Reg. 31,513, 31,513 (June 4, 2004). At the same time, explaining that its general standards "would [not] be appropriate or adequate to provide for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds," USDA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, "soliciting comments from the public to aid in the development of appropriate standards for birds." Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds, Rats, and Mice, 69 Fed. Reg. 31,537, 31,539 (June 4, 2004). In that notice, USDA promised to "publish a proposed rule for public comment" once it "determine[d] how to regulate ... birds." Id. And over the following years, USDA reiterated time and again its commitment to promulgate bird-appropriate standards. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. USDA , 7 F. Supp. 3d 1, 14 (D.D.C. 2013) (collecting Federal Register citations where USDA announced its intention to regulate birds). But to date, eighteen years after Congress amended the Act to make clear that it

946 F.3d 618

protects birds, USDA has failed to issue any standards pertaining to birds.

Animal-welfare groups first challenged USDA’s inaction in 2013, when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued under the APA to compel USDA to promulgate regulations specific to birds and, in the meantime, to enforce the existing general animal-welfare standards for the benefit of birds. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. USDA (PETA ), 797 F.3d 1087, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2015). After losing in the district court, PETA narrowed its claim on appeal, "abandon[ing] its effort to require the USDA to promulgate bird-specific regulations," and declining to "pursue the allegation made in its complaint that the USDA ‘unreasonably delayed’ enforcement." Id. at 1092 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) ). Our court, after rejecting USDA’s argument that PETA lacked Article III standing, addressed its sole remaining claim, holding that "nothing in the [Animal Welfare Act] requires the USDA to apply the general animal welfare standards to birds," id. at 1098.

In this case, having taken the baton from PETA, two other animal-rights groups, the American Anti-Vivisection Society and the Avian Welfare Coalition, sued to compel USDA either to issue bird-specific standards—a claim PETA had abandoned on appeal—or to apply its general standards to birds. The groups argued that USDA’s longstanding failure to promulgate bird-applicable standards amounted to arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), as well as "unlawfully withheld [and] unreasonably delayed" action in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). After finding that the two groups had standing, the district court dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim. See American Anti-Vivisection Society v. USDA , 351 F. Supp. 3d 16, 26 (D.D.C. 2018). The animal-rights groups appeal, arguing that the district court was wrong to dismiss their APA claims. According to the groups, USDA must fulfill its statutory obligation to protect birds either through its general animal-welfare standards or by issuing standards specifically applicable to birds. In response, USDA insists, as it did in the district court, that the groups lack standing and, in any event, that the district court properly dismissed their claims. We begin, as we must, with standing. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment , 523 U.S. 83...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Campaign Legal Ctr. v. Fed. Election Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 4, 2020
    ...activities’ that is ‘more than simply a setback to the organization's abstract social interests.’ " Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. USDA, 946 F.3d 615, 618 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (quoting Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) ). "Under our case law......
  • Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 12, 2020
    ...to the Court, see Pl.'s Notice of Supp. Auth. ("Pl.'s Notice"), ECF No. 24, the Circuit affirmed and applied PETA in Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. Dep't of Agric. (AAVS ), concluding that the Avian Welfare Coalition had organizational standing to pursue its claim that "USDA's longstanding f......
  • Am. Lung Ass'n v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 19, 2021
    ...seek the same relief on the same claim, only one needs to demonstrate standing. See American Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. United States Dep't of Agric. , 946 F.3d 615, 619–620 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The two organizations argue standing based on harm to their own activities; neither appears to be a ......
  • Campaign v. Bernhardt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 13, 2020
    ...Given this conclusion, whether any other plaintiff has standing need not be considered. See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. , 946 F.3d 615, 619–20 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (noting that "where parties seek the same relief," "only one party" is required "to have standing").Accordin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT