Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5398
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- FSIS (USDA) issued Directive 6130.1 and grants of federal inspection for equine slaughter to two facilities (Valley Meat, Responsible Transportation) and intended a third (Rains Natural Meats). Directive guided ante- and post-mortem inspections and intensified drug-residue testing for equines.
- Appellants (organizations and individuals opposing horse slaughter) sued under NEPA, seeking an EIS/EA and to set aside the Directive and the equine inspection grants; district court denied relief and dismissed the action.
- Congress had barred funding for equine inspection in FY2006–2011; funding was allowed briefly in 2012–2013; Congress reinstated the funding prohibition in FY2014–2015, preventing federal equine inspections.
- Subsequent developments: Valley Meat withdrew its equine-inspection application and abandoned equine slaughter; Responsible Transportation surrendered its equine grant to obtain cattle inspection; Rains received a state permit limited to non-equine processing and voluntarily dismissed its appeal.
- Because no facility currently holds or can lawfully pursue an equine-inspection grant in the present circumstances and Congress prohibits funding, the court held any relief would have no present real-world effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIS violated NEPA by issuing Directive 6130.1 without an EIS/EA | Directive and grants will enable/resume equine slaughter with environmental impacts requiring NEPA review | Mootness does not bar review because grants/Directive may have future effects; claims remain live | Moot — court lacks Article III jurisdiction because decision would have no current real-world effect |
| Whether challenges to issued equine-inspection grants are live | Grants to Valley Meat and Responsible Transportation caused concrete injury and should be set aside | Grants have been withdrawn/surrendered; facilities no longer intend or are able to slaughter equines | Moot — withdrawn/surrendered grants no longer present a live controversy |
| Whether challenge to intended grant to Rains is justiciable despite state permitting | Intended grant would have environmental impacts if implemented, so review is needed | State permit bars equine slaughter now; Rains dismissed appeal; intended grant is ineffective | Moot — state permit and funding ban mean intended grant has no current effect |
| Whether mootness exception "capable of repetition, yet evading review" applies | Issues likely to recur if Congress briefly allows equine inspection again | Future recurrence is speculative; no evidence disputes that review would evade judicial process | Exception does not apply; speculation insufficient to avoid mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 43 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1994) (Article III requires live case or controversy for jurisdiction)
- U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (mootness where parties lack legally cognizable interests)
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) (mootness asks whether a present determination will have real-world effect)
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 355 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2004) (vacatur appropriate when mootness due to happenstance frustrates review)
- Jones v. Temmer, 57 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 1995) (possibility of future legislative change is too speculative to defeat mootness)
- Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 674 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2012) (narrow "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception requires evidence of evasion)