According to a news source, the federal court that heard a challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) revision to its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling stated during the hearing that it would issue a decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction within 14 days. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.D.C., oral argument held August 27, 2013). Additional information about a dispute that has split trade associations representing different parts of the meat production industry appears in issues 490 and 495 of this Update. The organizations seeking the injunction reportedly argued that “[t]his is a regulation the agency concedes is a de minimis benefit . . . for a de maximus cost.” They contend that the new rules violate their First Amendment rights and could put them out of business. A USDA attorney apparently argued that the new…
Tag Archives D.C.
A federal court in the District of Columbia will consider on August 27, 2013, whether to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program changes required by a 2011 World Trade Organization (WTO) determination that, as initially drafted, the rules gave less favorable treatment to cattle and hogs imported from Canada and Mexico. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (filed July 8, 2013). Information about the revised COOL rule appears in Issue 485 of this Update. A number of meat-processing interests, including the American Meat Institute, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Confederación Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and National Pork Producers Council, challenged the new rule alleging that it violates First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, exceeds USDA’s authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In early August, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), National Farmers Union, American…
A federal court has awarded $90.8 million to the attorneys who represented African-American farmers in litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging discrimination in the loan application process. In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., decided July 11, 2013). Additional details about class counsels’ request appear in Issue 405 of this Update. Explaining the challenges counsel faced, their extensive efforts to secure an award for the class of farmers in excess of $1 billion, the millions they incurred in unreimbursed expenses, as well as the hours devoted to assisting the Claims Administrator during the claims process, the court found an award representing 7.4 percent of the claims fund reasonable. According to the court, “Class counsel have undertaken the immense challenge presented by this action with the utmost professionalism and integrity, exhibiting skill, diligence, and efficiency in all aspects of their duties.”
Trade organizations representing the interests of cattle and pork producers and meat processors in Canada and the United States have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging country-of-origin (COOL) labeling regulations that took effect May 23, 2013. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.D.C., filed July 8, 2013). They seek declaratory and injunctive relief, an order vacating the final rule, attorney’s fees, and costs. Explaining that meat producers and processors in the United States, Canada and Mexico have for years freely “commingled” livestock born, raised and processed across their borders, the plaintiffs allege that new requirements forcing them to “list separately, in sequence, the specific country where the animal was ‘born,’ the country where it was ‘raised,’ and the country where it was ‘slaughtered,’” will impose significant costs and entail extensive detail and paperwork for no health or safety reasons. They allege that the COOL regulations…
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules requiring California almonds sold domestically to be treated with heat or chemicals to prevent the spread of Salmonella. Koretoff v. Vilsack, No. 12-5075 (D.C. Cir., decided February 22, 2013). According to the court, the almond producers who mounted the challenge had waived their claims “by failing to raise them during the rulemaking process.” They had contended that the USDA secretary exceeded his authority in requiring the treatment of all almonds “irrespective of whether they are contaminated” and that the secretary failed to determine that the treatment rule was “the only practical means of advancing the interests of the producers.” Finding no error in the lower court’s disposition, the court affirmed its grant of summary judgment for the secretary.
A divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the graphic antismoking images which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) selected for placement on cigarette packages for the purpose of reducing smoking rates in the United States fail the intermediate scrutiny standard for compelled commercial speech. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, No. 11-5332 (D.C. Cir., decided August 24, 2012). According to the court, which vacated the graphic warning requirements and remanded to the agency, “FDA failed to present any data much less substantial evidence required under the [Administrative Procedure Act]—showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings will accomplish the agency’s stated objective of reducing smoking rates.” The court discusses the different standards applied when deciding whether government efforts to regulate speech are permissible under the First Amendment. A strict scrutiny standard, for example, gives government little leeway to compel or proscribe speech and imposes a heavy burden on…
The National Consumers League has filed a consumer fraud action in a Washington, D.C. court against Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Inc., alleging that the company falsely advertises its BOOST Kid Essentials® drinks as products that can strengthen children’s immune systems and aid their digestive systems. The Nat’l Consumers League v. Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition, Inc., No. 5772-10 (D.C. Super. Ct., filed July 30, 2010). Bringing the action on behalf of the D.C. general public, the nonprofit organization alleges one count of violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as “treble damages or statutory damages in the amount of $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater,” costs and attorney’s fees. The league relies on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) complaint against the company to assert that clinical studies do not support the promotional health-related representations. Additional details about the FTC’s settlement of its complaint and Nestlé’s agreement…
Nearly 1,000 unnamed plaintiffs, who claim to be family members of individuals purportedly killed by terrorist organizations in Colombia’s Urabá region, have sued Chiquita Brands International, Inc., alleging that throughout the 1990s and at least until 2004, the company “funded, armed, and otherwise supported” these organizations “to produce bananas in an environment free from labor opposition and social disturbances.” Does 1 Through 976 v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 10-404 (D.D.C., filed March 9, 2010). The plaintiffs allege that “[t]he deaths of Plaintiffs’ relatives were a direct, foreseeable, and intended result of Chiquita’s illegal and tortuous support of terrorist organizations.” According to the complaint, the plaintiffs bring their claims anonymously for fear of “violent reprisals, intimidation and death at the hands of the paramilitaries still operating in Colombia.” Their counsel “or his employees have interviewed each of the Doe Plaintiffs and summarized the details of each incident.” The complaint indicates…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has remanded to the D.C. Superior Court a lawsuit brought by the National Consumers League (NCL) against General Mills alleging that the company falsely misrepresents that Cheerios® “has drug-quality properties that would reduce total and ‘bad’ cholesterol levels when eaten.” Nat’l Consumers League v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-01881 (D.D.C., decided January 15, 2010). The cereal maker removed the case to federal court claiming that it was removable either as a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) or under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The NCL disclaimed Article III standing because it did not sustain any injury in fact, but was instead bringing the suit under the “private attorney general” provision of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. This provision allows a person to bring an action on behalf of the general public to seek relief “from the use by…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit filed by California almond growers, handlers and grower-handlers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging an agency regulation that requires handlers to treat raw almonds grown and sold in the United States to reduce the risk of Salmonella contamination. Koretoff v. Vilsack, No. 08-1558 (D.D.C., decided March 9, 2009). Without addressing the merits of the complaint, the court granted the USDA’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, which would have required petitioning the USDA secretary before bringing their action in court, as mandated by statute. Since September 2007, all domestic almonds intended for sale in the United States must be pasteurized by either proplylene-oxide fumigation or steam heat. Growers and handlers reportedly complain that unpasteurized raw almonds demand higher prices, up to 40 percent more, and that foreign suppliers, who are…
