933 F.3d 1088
9th Cir.2019Background
- ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) requested expedited FOIA processing for USDA Animal Welfare Act (AWA) inspection records, asserting delays posed an imminent threat to the life/physical safety of specific animals (e.g., Tony the tiger).
- USDA denied expedition requests, stating FOIA's phrase "individual" in the expedited-processing provision refers to human beings, not animals; USDA made the same denial for other ALDF AWA-related requests.
- ALDF sued for a declaration and injunction that "individual" includes animals for purposes of expedited processing; USDA completed production of requested Tony records after litigation began, and the district court granted summary judgment for USDA.
- The Ninth Circuit considered jurisdictional issues (mootness and FOIA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision) and held ALDF’s challenge alleged a cognizable "pattern or practice" claim under Hajro, so the case was not moot and § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) did not bar review of such a claim.
- On the merits, the court interpreted the undefined term "individual" in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(I) and concluded its plain meaning—absent any specified class or species—refers to a human being; therefore USDA’s policy excluding animals from expedition was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "individual" in FOIA expedited-processing provision includes animals | "Individual" can mean a particular being (including animals); therefore animals qualify for expedited processing when threatened | "Individual" in the provision refers to human beings; animals are excluded | The term refers to human beings; animals are not covered |
| Whether the case was moot after USDA produced records | ALDF’s suit alleges a continuing "pattern or practice" denial of expedition; relief remains available | Production moots case because requested records were provided | Not moot: Hajro test satisfied (repeated violations, personal harm, likelihood of future harm) |
| Whether FOIA § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) (no review after complete response) strips jurisdiction over pattern-or-practice claims | Section does not strip jurisdiction over declaratory/injunctive pattern-or-practice challenges | Section bars review of denials after complete production of a particular request | § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) does not bar pattern-or-practice claims; district court has jurisdiction |
| Whether analogous FOIA provisions or other statutes require reading "individual" to include animals (statutory construction arguments) | Exemption 7(F) and animal-protection statutes show Congress intended "individual" to include animals | Other statutes’ language and context show Congress uses "individual" to mean human beings absent express contrary indication | Rejects plaintiff’s construction; plain meaning and statutory context point to human-only meaning |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (interpreting "individual" to mean a natural person in a different statutory context)
- Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing FOIA "specific request" and "pattern or practice" claims and setting a three-part test)
- Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (appellate jurisdiction discussion when district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (mootness and live-case-or-controversy principles)
- Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (effectual relief and mootness analysis)
- ALDF v. FDA, 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for FOIA summary judgment)
- Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (same-words-same-meaning canon of statutory construction)
- Rosenfeld v. United States, 859 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1988) (FOIA’s pro-disclosure purpose)
- Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (concerns about overbroad expedited-processing rules disadvantaging other requesters)
- Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, U.S.-Mexico, 740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (broad reading of "any individual" in Exemption 7(F))