American Meat Institute v. United States Department of Agriculture
411 U.S. App. D.C. 318
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- The Secretary of Agriculture promulgated the 2013 country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rule for meat and other foods, prompting First Amendment and statutory challenges by AMI.
- Congress defined country of origin in the Farm Bills and entrusted implementation to the Secretary, with definitions focusing on where birth, raising, and slaughter occurred.
- The 2009 rule labeled products with “Product of” and allowed commingling, later challenged after WTO ruled it violated the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
- The WTO Appellate Body found issues with the 2009 rule’s precision; in response, the 2013 rule required more precise origin information, increasing administrative and cost implications.
- AMI challenged the 2013 rule in district court on statutory and First Amendment grounds; the en banc court considered whether Zauderer extends beyond deception to other government interests.
- The en banc court reinstated the district court’s judgment, holding that Zauderer applies to these disclosures and that the asserted interests are substantial and adequately served by the 2013 rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zauderer applies beyond deception to other governmental interests | AMI argues Zauderer is deception-specific | The court should apply Zauderer broadly to disclosures | Zauderer applies beyond deception |
| Whether the government interest in country-of-origin labeling is substantial | AMI contends the interest is idle curiosity or insufficient | Government cites long history and consumer interest in origin labeling | Government interest found substantial under Central Hudson/Zauderer |
| Whether the disclosure is reasonably related and narrowly tailored to the interest | AMI contends the mandate is overbroad or misaligned | Disclosure is purely factual, uncontroversial, and reasonably related | Disclosure policy reasonably related and tailored to the interest |
| Whether the statutory history and regulatory record support the rule under Zauderer | Agency reliance on historic law is insufficient if not properly grounded | Statutory history and rulemaking support the rule's aims | Record supports Zauderer-based justification; statute/policy aligned |
Key Cases Cited
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (disclosure requirements are permissible to cure deception when purely factual and uncontroversial)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (test for regulating commercial speech: substantial interest, direct advancement, narrow tailoring)
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229 (2010) (disclosures in professional advertising subject to less exacting scrutiny under Zauderer)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205 (2012) (Zauderer limited to deception-related disclosures in context of graphic warnings)
- National Association of Manufacturers v. NLRB, 717 F.3d 947 (2013) (circuit precedent interpreting Zauderer as deception-based limitation)
- United States v. Ury, 106 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1939) (historical origin of country-of-origin labeling)