Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack, 13–2187.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Citation | 782 F.3d 565 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–2187.,13–2187. |
| Parties | FRONT RANGE EQUINE RESCUE; The Humane Society of the United States; Marin Humane Society; Horses for Life Foundation; Return to Freedom; Ramona Cordova; Krystle Smith; Cassie Gross; Deborah Trahan ; Barbara Sink; Chief David Bald Eagle; Chief Arvol Looking Horse; Tanya Littlewolf; Roxanne Talltree–Douglas; Foundation to Protect New Mexico Wildlife; Sandy Schaefer, Plaintiffs–Appellants, and State of New Mexico, Plaintiff Intervenor–Appellant, v. Tom VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Elisabeth A. Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Alfred A. Almanza, Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Defendants–Appellees, and Responsible Transportation, LLC ; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Rains Natural Meats ; Valley Meat Company, LLC; Chevaline, LLC; International Equine Business Association; New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association ; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association ; Ranchers-cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America; Marcy Britton ; Bill and Jan Wood; Leroy Wetz; Shirley Wetz; Doug Johnson; Judy Johnson; Kujyukuri, Ltd.; United Horsemen ; Scenic View Ranch, Defendants Intervenors Appellees. American Farm Bureau Federation; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, Amici Curiae. |
| Decision Date | 03 April 2015 |
Bruce A. Wagman of Schiff Hardin LLP, San Francisco, CA, (Rocky N. Unruh, Schiff Hardin LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ari Biernoff, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, and Brian Egolf of Egolf+Ferlic+Day, LLC, Santa Fe, New Mexico, with him on the briefs) for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Mark R. Haag, Attorney, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Thomas N. Bolick, Attorney–Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, of counsel; Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Andrew A. Smith and Alison D. Garner, Attorneys, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with him on the briefs), Washington, D.C., for Defendants–Appellees.
Karen Budd–Falen and Kathryn Brack Morrow, Cheyenne, WY; A. Blair Dunn and Patrick J. Rogers, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants–Intervenors–Appellees.
Jay C. Johnson and Kathryn Kusske Floyd of Venable LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.
Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves environmental challenges to a federal agency's decisions to grant inspection services for the slaughter and processing of horses and other equines at three slaughterhouses. In the proceedings below, the district court affirmed the agency's grants of inspection. Plaintiffs—various organizations and individuals opposed to horse slaughter—then filed this appeal to challenge the district court's decision. However, one slaughterhouse subsequently withdrew its application for inspection, a second slaughterhouse surrendered its grant of equine inspection in order to obtain a grant of inspection for cattle slaughter, and the third slaughterhouse failed to successfully challenge a state permitting decision to allow only non-equine slaughter at the facility. Moreover, the current congressional appropriations act prohibits funding for equine slaughter inspections. We accordingly dismiss this appeal and vacate the district court's decision based on mootness.
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, “amenable species” of livestock—including horses, mules, and other equines—may be slaughtered for human consumption only after undergoing federal inspection. 21 U.S.C. § 603(a). Accordingly, slaughter facilities wishing to conduct equine slaughter operations must apply for a grant of inspection services from the Food Safety Inspection Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By regulation, equines may not be slaughtered at the same facility as other livestock. 9 C.F.R. § 305.2(b). Thus, a grant of inspection for equines will cause the agency to withdraw any previous grant of inspection for other species, and, conversely, a grant of non-equine inspection causes the withdrawal of any previous equine grant. (See Appellants' App. at 411.)
Between fiscal years 2006 and 2011, Congress prohibited the use of appropriated funds for ante-mortem inspection of equines, thus effectively preventing commercial horse slaughter from occurring in the United States. However, the 2012 and 2013 appropriations acts did not include this prohibition, and FSIS accordingly began moving forward with plans to resume federal inspection of commercial equine slaughter.
In June 2013, FSIS issued Directive 6130.1, which provides instructions to FSIS inspectors on how to perform ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections of equine for slaughter. Among other things, the Directive provides for intensified random-drug-residue testing of equines and explains how such testing should be conducted.
After issuing the Directive, FSIS issued grants of inspection for equine processing at two slaughterhouses—Valley Meat Company of Roswell, New Mexico, and Responsible Transportation LLC of Sigourney, Iowa. The agency also announced it was prepared to grant inspection to a third slaughterhouse, Rains Natural Meats of Gallatin, Missouri, but it did not issue the grant at that time because the district court had already issued a temporary restraining order in this case.
Following FSIS's issuance of the grants of inspection to the first two slaughterhouses, Appellants commenced this federal action. In their complaint, Appellants claimed the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act by preparing the Directive and issuing the grants of inspection without first preparing an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment to evaluate the possible environmental impacts of equine slaughter operations. The district court initially granted a temporary restraining order against the agency, but, after further consideration, it concluded that the agency was not required to prepare an EIS or EA before issuing the Directive and the grants of inspection. The court accordingly vacated the restraining order and dismissed the action. Appellants then filed this appeal.
Several recent developments have significantly changed the status of this litigation. First, Congress again included a funding prohibition for equine inspection services in its 2014 and 2015 appropriations acts. Second, Valley Meat Company decided to abandon all plans to slaughter equines and asked FSIS to withdraw its grant of inspection. Third, Responsible Transportation LLC voluntarily surrendered its grant of inspection for equines in order to obtain cattle slaughter inspection services instead. Finally, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources issued Rains Natural Meats a permit allowing the processing of only non-equine animals. Although Rains filed an administrative appeal from this decision, it subsequently chose to voluntarily dismiss the appeal and continue or resume non-equine slaughter operations. Accordingly, like Responsible Transportation, Rains is currently operating under a non-equine grant of federal inspection.
Based on all of these factual developments, we find the case to be moot, and we therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
“Article III's requirement that federal courts adjudicate only cases and controversies necessitates that courts decline to exercise jurisdiction where the award of any requested relief would be moot—i.e. where the controversy is no longer live and ongoing.” Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 43 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir.1994). A case is moot where “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980), or where the “relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed,” In re Jennings Oil Co., 4 F.3d 887, 889 (10th Cir.1993). Stated differently, “[t]he crucial question is whether granting a present determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation,
601 F.3d 1096, 1110 (10th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the relief Appellants sought was to set aside the grants of equine inspection to Valley Meat and Responsible Transportation, as well as the intended grant of equine inspection to Rains Natural Meats. The parties are in agreement that Valley Meat's voluntary withdrawal of its grant of inspection and its decision to abandon all plans for equine slaughter have mooted the claims related to this facility. As for the other two grants, Appellants assert that their challenges to these grants have likewise become moot due to subsequent developments, while Appellees argue that there remains a live case or controversy regarding these grants. After due consideration, we agree with Appellants that their challenges to all three of the grants of inspection are now moot because a present determination of the issues presented would have no real-world effect.
It is undisputed that Responsible Transportation surrendered its grant of equine inspection in order to process non-equine species at its facility. Nevertheless, the federal Appellees argue that Responsible Transportation “may seek to switch back to equines after the funding ban expires,” (Appellees' Br. at 27 n. 10). They suggested at oral argument that the surrendered grant of inspection is still relevant to the real world because, if Congress again removes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schell v. OXY USA Inc., s. 13–3297
...Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937) ); see also Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack, 782 F.3d 565, 569 (10th Cir.2015) ("[W]e are persuaded the contingent possibility 814 F.3d 1116that Responsible Transportation might apply for a new grant o......
-
Schell v. Oxy USA Inc., s. 13–3297
...Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937) ); see also Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack, 782 F.3d 565, 569 (10th Cir.2015) ("[W]e are persuaded the contingent possibility that Responsible Transportation might apply for a new grant of equine insp......
-
Watch v. Ferebee, Civil Action No. 19-cv-01449-PAB
...authorization must be promulgated through a procedure that is inherently of short duration. See Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack , 782 F.3d 565 (10th Cir. 2015) (holding that speculation cannot substitute for actual evidence from which the court might infer that governmental behavior is......
-
Janny v. Palmer, Civil Action No. 17-cv-02194-KLM
...of any requested relief would be moot—i.e. where the controversy is no longer live and ongoing." Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack, 782 F.3d 565, 568 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A case is moot . . . where the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer ......