Koretoff v. Schaefer
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5346
D.D.C.2012Background
- This case challenges USDA's Salmonella Rule under the Almond Order, requiring pasteurization or chemical treatment of almonds to prevent Salmonella.
- California almond producers allege the Rule exceeds the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA) and Almond Order authority and was promulgated without proper hearings or producer voting.
- The District Court previously addressed Koretoff I and Koretoff II in related proceedings; the D.C. Circuit affirmed some points and remanded others.
- The Almond Order authorizes quality-related terms, including outgoing quality controls, and the Salmonella Rule was framed as a quality safeguard under 7 C.F.R. § 981.42(b).
- Plaintiffs argue the term 'quality' in § 608c(6)(A) has a narrow meaning limited to inherent attributes, not pathogen absence; the Secretary argues it is a broader, flexible standard.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding the Salmonella Rule within the Secretary's authority and properly promulgated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMAA § 608c(6)(A) authorizes the Salmonella Rule | Koretoff argues 'quality' has a narrow meaning excluding treatment rules. | Vilsack contends 'quality' is broad and encompasses methods reducing pathogens to protect markets. | Yes; Salmonella Rule valid under AMAA |
| Whether the Almond Order permits the Salmonella Rule under its outgoing quality control provision | Rule exceeds 'outgoing quality' scope as defined and relies on incoming controls. | Rule falls within 'minimum quality and inspection requirements' to contribute to orderly marketing. | Yes; Salmonella Rule authorized under Almond Order § 981.42(b) |
| Whether the Salmonella Rule was properly promulgated (informal rulemaking) instead of an amendment requiring hearings and votes | Rule should have gone through formal amendment with hearings and producer referendum. | Rule issued under Board authority and Secretary approval; not an amendment requiring referendum. | Yes; proper under board/Secretary authority and Koretoff II precedent |
| Whether plaintiffs waived or exhausted their claims by not raising them during agency proceedings | Claims should be considered; waiver should not bar merits. | Waiver applies; agency considered issues during rulemaking; some claims also lack administrative record support. | Waiver majority; remaining merits fail on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Koretoff v. Vilsack, 614 F.3d 532, 614 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (authority of AMAA/Almond Order; preclusion of certain challenges)
- Mayo Foundation for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011) (Chevron step one; agency deference framework)
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (Chevron deference framework)
- Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168 (1969) (milk marketing orders; broad vs. narrow agency powers)
- Smyser v. Block, 760 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1985) (ambit of AMAA and related challenges to regulation)
- Blair v. Freeman, 370 F.2d 229 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (milk marketing order interpretation caution)
- Ark. Dairy Co-op Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (AMAA milk regulation analysis; context for scope of authority)
- American Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency action review; statutory interpretation principles)