Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Animal ID System
A federal court in the District of Columbia has dismissed claims that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) violates a number of federal and state laws, including a religious freedom statute and constitutional protections. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund v. Vilsack, No. 08-1546 (D.D.C., decided July 23, 2009). Dubbed in the press as the “mark of the beast” lawsuit, the complaint, brought by farmers “who raise livestock in a sustainable manner,” contends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) coerced Michigan’s Department of Agriculture to adopt uniform NAIS requirements that threaten their way of life by gathering information into a national database against their wills and in violation of their religious beliefs.
Among the complainants are Amish farmers who apparently believe (i) they have been given dominion and control over animals, and that control has now been given to state and federal agencies; (ii) they are not permitted to take the NAIS “mark,” and the imposition of premises identification numbers (PINs) and radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) violates this religious tenet; (iii) they must farm but will be forced out of business by prohibitive NAIS compliance costs; and (iv) they must eschew technology, “directly contrary to the use of RFIDs, scanners and computer programs,” and discourage outside contact, “yet their private data is stored in a national database.”
The court dismissed the claims against the USDA because they erroneously asserted that NAIS requires the registration of PINs and the use of RFID tags. According to the court, NAIS regulations are not mandatory and, in any event, allow the use of other identification methods. According to the court, Michigan adopted many of the challenged practices in response to a bovine tuberculosis emergency in the late 1990s and not as a matter of USDA dictate. The court rejected the claims against the state department of agriculture because they involved federal statutes that do not apply to state actors implementing state law, and the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has expressed its disappointment in the court’s decision and indicated that it is considering its options, “including the filing of an appeal, the filing of a request to reconsider the evidence and the law, or bringing a case in state court against Michigan.” See The BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times, July 24, 2009; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund Press Release, July 27, 2009.
