Levine v. Vilsack

Decision Date20 November 2009
Docket NumberNo. 08-16441.,08-16441.
CitationLevine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2009)
PartiesEllen LEVINE; Beverly Ulbrich; Krista Kielman; Gretchen Wallerich; Kanda Boykin; Humane Society of the United States; East Bay Animal Advocates; Western North Carolina Workers' Rights Center; Mississippi Poultry Workers for Equality and Respect, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas J. VILSACK,<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Sarah Uhlemann, Jonathan R. Lovvorn and Carter Dillard, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.; and Corey Evans and Geneva Page, Evans & Page, San Francisco, CA, for the appellants.

Gregory G. Katsas, Jonathan F. Cohn, Michael S. Raab and Henry C. Whitaker, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Marilyn Hall Patel, District Judge, Presiding.D.C.No. CV 05-04764-MHP.

Before: ALFRED T. GOODWIN and PAMELA ANN RYMER, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE H. WU,**District Judge.

WU, District Judge:

Dr. Ellen Levine, Beverly Ulbrich, Krista Kielman, Gretchen Wallerich, Kanda Boykin, The Humane Society of the United States, East Bay Animal Advocates, Mississippi Poultry Workers for Equality and Respect, Western North Carolina Workers' Center, John Doe I, and John Doe II(henceforth collectively "Levine") appeal from a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture("Secretary" or "USDA").This case involves a dispute concerning whether chickens, turkeys and other domestic fowl are excluded from the humane slaughter provisions of what the parties(and references subsequent to the enactment) term the "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958"("HMSA of 1958").1See7 U.S.C. §§ 1901-07.In particular, the parties dispute whether poultry should be considered "other livestock" as that phrase is used in that statute.Id. at § 1902(a).Levine challenged USDA's enunciation of its position — made most recently on September 28, 2005, in a Federal Register Notice issued by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, seeTreatment of Live Poultry before Slaughter,70 Fed.Reg. 56,624(Sept. 28, 2005) — that "there is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry."Id. at 56,625.

In Levine v. Conner,540 F.Supp.2d 1113(N.D.Cal.2008), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California("district court") determined that, while the plain meaning of the word "livestock" as used in the HMSA of 1958 is ambiguous, Congressional intent behind the term was clear and consistent with the interpretation adopted by the USDA.Because we conclude that Levine cannot satisfy the redressability prong of Article III standing, we vacate that decision and remand to the district court so that it can dismiss the action.

I.BACKGROUND
A.Statutory Background

In 1958, Congress passed the HMSA of 1958.SeePub.L. No. 85-765,72 Stat. 862(1958)(codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. §§ 1901-07).That legislation mandated (and continues to mandate) that "the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods."7 U.S.C. § 1901.It also authorized and directed the Secretary to designate "humane" methods of slaughter conforming "to the policy stated in this chapter" for "each species of livestock."Id. at § 1904(b).

When enacted, section 1902 set forth "two methods of slaughtering and handling" as humane:

(a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or

(b) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument.[2]

Id.§ 1902(emphasis added).Congress provided an enforcement provision, but only in the form of generally prohibiting the federal government from purchasing livestock products where the animals were slaughtered by methods other than those designated and approved by the Secretary.SeePub.L. No. 85-765,72 Stat. 862, 862-63(codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1903(repealed 1978)).3The following year, USDA prescribed humane slaughter methods for those species expressly identified in the statute in addition to goats.4See24 Fed. Reg. 1549, 1551-53(Mar. 3, 1959)(to be codified at 9 C.F.R. pt. 180).

The HMSA of 1958 did not define the terms "livestock" or "other livestock."Congressional debate revealed views favoring both interpretations advanced here — one that would include chickens, turkeys and other domestic fowl within its expanse and one that would preclude such inclusiveness.See, e.g.,104 Cong. Rec. 1655, 1659(1958).Numerous versions of the legislation were advanced, some specifically including the term "poultry" and some (including the one eventually adopted) which excluded use of that specific term.See, e.g.,104 Cong. Rec. 15,368(1958);H.R. 3029, 85th Cong., Sec.(g)(2)(1957);H.R. 8308, 85th Cong. § 2(1957).One provision (now repealed) of the HMSA of 1958 itself separately referred to "livestock growers" and the "poultry industry" in connection with the formation of an advisory committee designed to consult with the Secretary and USDA officials in the course of carrying out the mandates set forth elsewhere in the legislation.SeePub.L. No. 85-765,72 Stat. 862, 863(codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1905(repealed 1978)).In addition, in the prior year, the same Congress had passed the Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA")(21 U.S.C. §§ 451-72) which, among other things, gave USDA authority to inspect poultry producers for compliance with health and sanitary requirements, required inspection of poultry after slaughter, established labeling requirements for poultry products, and allowed for withdrawal of inspections for noncompliance and the imposition of civil and criminal penalties for the sale of adulterated products.See21 U.S.C. §§ 455-57,461.

In 1978, in legislation also termed a "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act"("HMSA of 1978"), Congress repealed (along with certain other sections) the only enforcement provision contained within the HMSA of 1958(i.e., the prohibition on federal government purchases of inhumanely slaughtered livestock products previously found in 7 U.S.C. § 1903), and, at the same time, incorporated humane slaughter provisions into the Federal Meat Inspection Act ("FMIA")(21 U.S.C. §§ 601-95), which had originally been enacted in 1907.SeePub.L. No. 95-445,92 Stat. 1069(1978).Unlike the HMSA of 1958, however, the FMIA imposed inspection requirements only for "cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equines."Id.§ 2, 92 Stat. at 1069;see also21 U.S.C. § 603(a).As a result, if, upon inspection of the slaughtering of those animals, the slaughtering practices were not in accord with those established pursuant to the promulgated regulations, the USDA could suspend mandatory inspection (in effect cutting off those slaughterhouses from the commercial marketplace and the consuming public), and could impose criminal penalties.See21 U.S.C. §§ 603(b),604,676.USDA then issued regulations implementing the 1978amendments, which replaced the pre-existing regulations issued pursuant to the HMSA of 1958 and covered only those animals listed in the FMIA.See44 Fed.Reg. 37,954(June 29, 1979).Nevertheless, in enacting the HMSA of 1978, Congress did not repeal those provisions of the HMSA of 1958-7 U.S.C. §§ 1902(a),1904(b) — which 1) set forth the specific list of species for purposes of that earlier statute, 2) included the terms "other livestock" and "livestock," and 3) authorized and directed the Secretary to designate compliant methods of slaughter.

In 2005, Congress deleted the specific list of animals from the FMIA and replaced it with the term "amenable species."SeeAgriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub.L. No. 109-97, Title VII, § 798,119 Stat. 2120(2005)."Amenable species" was defined to include "those species subject to the provisions of this chapter on the day before November 10, 2005" as well as "any additional species of livestock that the Secretary considers appropriate."21 U.S.C. § 601(w).5

B.History Of USDA's Position

In the same month that Congress passed the HMSA of 1958, USDA itself gave some indication that it considered "[c]hicken eggs, commercial broilers, chickens, and turkeys" as "[l]ivestock and livestock products."SeeChanges in Farm Production and Efficiency, USDA Statistical Bulletin No. 233, at 4-5 & n. 5(Aug.1958).In 1960, however, regulations were issued which defined "livestock products" for purposes of the HMSA of 1958 to mean any article intended for or capable of being used as food for either human or animals which is derived from slaughtered "cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, or goats," and specifying further that the term "do[es] not include ... poultry."25 Fed.Reg. 11152, 11152(Nov. 23, 1960).USDA reiterated that position in 1979 in response to inquiries as to whether any humane slaughtering requirements covered chickens following the 1978amendments.6See44 Fed.Reg. 68,809, 68,811(Nov. 30, 1979).On September 28, 2005, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service issued a Federal Register Notice ("the Notice") entitled "Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter."70 Fed.Reg. 56,624(Sept. 28, 2005).The Notice indicated that it was in response to "considerable congressional and public interest in the humane treatment...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
49 cases
  • California v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 26, 2011
    ...injury. Redressability is sufficiently alleged because, if the FHFA's policy were set aside as arbitrary and capricious, it is likely that financing streams would be renewed. This case is distinguishable from Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2009), a case upon which the United States relies to argue that Plaintiffs' claims are not redressable. In Levine, theplaintiffs brought suit against the Secretary of Agriculture, alleging that the agency's interpretive rulelikely that financing streams would be renewed. This case is distinguishable from Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2009), a case upon which the United States relies to argue that Plaintiffs' claims are not redressable. In Levine, theplaintiffs brought suit against the Secretary of Agriculture, alleging that the agency's interpretive rule excluding poultry from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The plaintiffs soughtAct, a separate statute which was not at issue in the case. Id. at 993-95. The court reasoned that it was speculative whether the Secretary would do so and whether resulting regulations would make the slaughter of poultry more humane. Id. at 996-97. The present actions differ because further action by a federal agency would not be required to achieve Plaintiffs' goals. Plaintiffs have alleged that PACE encumbrances were treated like tax assessments until the FHFA took the...
  • Cal. Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, Inc. v. Chapman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • June 03, 2013
    ...plaintiff's decedent and the organizational plaintiff's members2 depend on the actions of third parties who are not before the court — that is, the persons who provide the day-to-day care. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2009),When the suit is one challenging the legality of government action or inaction, the nature and extent of facts that must be averred (at the summary judgment stage) or proved (at the trial stage) in order to establish standingcausation and permit redressability of injury. Thus, when the plaintiff is not himself the object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily "substantially more difficult" to establish.Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62). Here, the nature and extent of Plaintiffs' factual allegations do not establish that the relief they seek would address the injuries they have identified. Plaintiffs therefore have not satisfied the...
  • Alsheikh v. Lew
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 22, 2016
    ...suffice." Id. A "court's obligation to take a plaintiff at its word at that stage in connection with Article III standing issues is primarily directed at the injury in fact and causation issues, not redressability." Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561). "[I]t is within the trial court's power to allow or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations...
  • Casey v. Gen. Motors, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 12, 2021
    ...Defect described in the Amended Complaint. The Court concludes that facts as alleged by Casey support an inference that the alleged injury is "fairly traceable to the challenged conduct" sufficient to confer Article III standing. Levine, 587 F.3d at 991-92. Two of the GM service bulletins as alleged by Casey predate the original sale of the Vehicle in 2013, and three of the service bulletins predate the sale of the Vehicle to Casey in 2016. Casey alleges that the 2010 service bulletinMarolda v. Symantec Corp., 672 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2009). In addition, Article III standing requires that that the plaintiff suffered an injury that is "fairly traceable to the challenged conduct." Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Nov. 20, 2009). Casey must allege facts that support an inference that her Vehicle experienced the Fuse Block Defect described in the Amended Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, Casey alleges that...
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Delineating deference to agency science: doctrine or political ideology?
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law Nelson, Laura Anzie
    • June 22, 2010
    ...(lack of standing and statute of limitations tolled); Glasser v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 08-35764, 2009 WL 5184208 (9th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge incidental take permit under ESA); Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2009) (lack of standing to challenge USDA's interpretive rule); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., No. 08-16400, 2009 WL 4912592 (9th Cir. 2009) (housing loan too tenuous to...