438 F.Supp.3d 546
D. Md.2020Background
- 2012 USDA rule set phased sodium reductions (three targets through SY 2022–23) and required 100% of grains served to be whole grain‑rich after SY 2014–15.
- Congress repeatedly added appropriations riders delaying sodium compliance and allowing hardship exemptions to the 100% whole‑grain requirement.
- USDA issued a 2017 Interim Final Rule extending "flexibilities": it kept Sodium Target 1 longer and retained the 100% whole‑grain requirement while extending hardship exemptions and solicited comments only about extending flexibilities and impacts on Sodium Target 2.
- In December 2018 USDA issued a Final Rule that delayed Sodium Target 2 to SY 2024–25, eliminated the Final Sodium Target altogether, and reduced the whole‑grain requirement from 100% to 50% (eliminating hardship exemptions).
- Plaintiffs (Center for Science in the Public Interest and Healthy School Food Maryland) sued under the APA. The district court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment and vacated/remanded the Final Rule because it was not a logical outgrowth of the Interim Final Rule; the court rejected plaintiffs' other challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logical outgrowth / notice‑and‑comment | Final Rule (eliminating Final Sodium Target and 100% whole‑grain requirement) was not reasonably foreseeable from the Interim Final Rule, so commenters lacked fair notice. | Interim Final Rule and public comments gave adequate notice; commenters addressed sodium and whole grain issues. | Court: Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the Interim Final Rule; vacatur and remand required. |
| Consistency with federal statutes (Dietary Guidelines) | Statutes require close alignment with Dietary Guidelines' quantitative recommendations for sodium and whole grains. | Statutes are ambiguous; USDA reasonably may use Dietary Guidelines as a starting point and balance practical considerations. | Court: statutes ambiguous; under Chevron, USDA's interpretation was permissible and reasonable. |
| Arbitrary and capricious / consideration of factors | USDA improperly favored taste/operational concerns over nutrition and failed to explain nationwide rollbacks. | USDA permissibly balanced nutrition goals against operational realities, student acceptance, and industry feasibility and provided reasons. | Court: USDA considered relevant factors and provided a satisfactory explanation; not arbitrary and capricious. |
| Change in position & response to comments | USDA changed prior stance without adequate acknowledgment or reasoned explanation; failed to respond to key comments (health impacts, disparate effects, alternatives). | USDA acknowledged change, furnished reasons (hardship exemptions prevalence, implementation challenges, upcoming 2020 Guidelines), and adequately responded to significant comments. | Court: USDA displayed awareness and provided reasoned explanations; responses to comments were sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chocolate Mfrs. Ass’n v. Block, 755 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985) (defines logical‑outgrowth/notice requirement for rulemaking)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference where statute ambiguous)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (U.S. 2009) (agency must acknowledge and reasonably explain change in policy)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (U.S. 2016) (agencies may change policy with reasoned explanation)
- Allina Health Servs. v. Sebelius, 746 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (deficient notice in rulemaking generally requires vacatur)
- Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. F.A.A., 988 F.2d 186 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (agency must respond sufficiently to significant comments)
- Manufactured Hous. Inst. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2006) (proposed rule must enable public to discern what is at stake)
- Northeast Md. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (soliciting comments on an issue can indicate rule change is under consideration)