American Meat Institute v. United States Department of Agriculture
409 U.S. App. D.C. 96
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2013 the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) replaced its 2009 COOL regulation with a more detailed rule requiring muscle-cut meat labels to identify the country for each production step (born, raised, slaughtered) and eliminated a commingling labeling allowance.
- The 2009 rule had allowed a simpler "Product of" country listing and permitted commingling (labeling cuts processed the same day from different-origin animals with the same multi-country label).
- Canada and Mexico successfully challenged the 2009 rule at the WTO, prompting the U.S. to revise COOL to increase precision and meet a WTO compliance deadline.
- The American Meat Institute (AMI), trade associations for producers and packers, challenged the 2013 rule in district court asserting (1) the rule exceeded statutory authority under the COOL statute and (2) it violated the First Amendment; the district court denied a preliminary injunction.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding AMI likely could not succeed on the merits: the rule fell within the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute and any compelled factual, noncontroversial disclosures were evaluated under Zauderer and survived constitutional review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMS exceeded statutory authority by "banning" commingling | AMI: 2013 rule effectively bans commingling by forcing segregated handling; statute contemplates listing all countries processed the same day. | USDA: Rule does not ban production practices; it requires accurate step-by-step labeling; statute permits regulation to implement origin disclosures. | Held: No ban; agency reasonably required accurate origin labeling and did not exceed statutory authority. |
| Whether step-by-step (born/raised/slaughtered) labeling exceeds COOL | AMI: Statute authorizes only listing countries of origin, not tying each production step to a country. | USDA: Statute repeatedly distinguishes the three production steps, so step-specific labels are a reasonable implementation. | Held: AMS’s interpretation is reasonable and lawful. |
| Whether the "may"/"may have been" language in §1638a(a)(2)(B) permits commingling labels | AMI: "May have been" permits listing all possible countries from commingled production. | USDA: Context (singular articles, other subsections) supports identifying the actual animal’s origins; agency retains bounded flexibility. | Held: "May have been" does not compel commingling allowance; agency reading is permissible. |
| Whether compelled disclosures violate the First Amendment | AMI: Apply Central Hudson commercial-speech test; Zauderer limited to correcting deception—COOL serves mere curiosity and thus fails Central Hudson. | USDA: Disclosure is factual, non-controversial commercial speech; Zauderer applies and permits disclosure if reasonably related to government interest (not limited to anti-deception). | Held: Zauderer applies to factual, noncontroversial commercial disclosures beyond pure deception; government interests (consumer choice, food-safety concerns, patriotism) suffice; disclosure is constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (framework for commercial-speech restrictions).
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (compelled disclosure of factual, noncontroversial commercial information is subject to relaxed review).
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208 (2009) (Chevron/agency deference principles; reasonableness of agency interpretation).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements).
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standard of review for legal questions on appeal and preliminary-injunction considerations).