Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Administrative Law
Injunction Prohibits Egg Board Advertisements Opposing
a Humane Society Ballot Proposal
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Californians for Humane Farms v. Schafer, No. C 08-03843 MHP, 2008 WL 4449583 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California imposed a temporary preliminary injunction prohibiting the Secretary of Agriculture and the American Egg Board from running advertisements to oppose the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act" ballot initiative sponsored by Californians for Humane Farms.
Background
Californians for Humane Farms (CHF) brought an action against the United States Secretary of Agriculture alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. Id. at *1. CHF was a non-profit ballot committee, established by the Humane Society and other organizations for the purpose of sponsoring a California ballot initiative in the November 4, 2008, election. Id. If approved, its proposal (called the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act") would place limitations on the confinement of egg-laying hens and certain other farm animals. Id. In November 2007, the American Egg Board voted to set aside $3 million to fund public relations and other projects to educate consumers about current agriculture practices, and the Secretary of Agriculture approved the Board's budget. Id. at *2-3. CHF protested to the USDA and the Egg Board, alleging that the $3 million obtained from federal check-off funds would be used to oppose its ballot initiative, but the Secretary responded that the budget was legal and well within the boundaries set by Congress, and CHF brought this action seeking an injunction. Id. at *3.
Arguments
CHF argued that the Egg Board's California advertising campaign was designed to influence the election by opposing CHF's proposed ballot initiative, and as such was impermissible use of federal check-off funds. Id. at *6.
The Secretary argued that the advertisements were generic, educational advertisements unrelated to the ballot initiative because they discussed the advantages of locally-grown eggs and not the confinement or treatment of any animal or the ballot initiative itself, and did not advocate any political position. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
Plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, and also show that public interest favors issuance of the preliminary injunction. Id. at *4. The court found that CHF had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits; there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the Egg Board's proposed advertising campaign was created to oppose CHF's ballot initiative and thereby influence governmental policy. Id. at *7-8. The court further concluded that an influx of illegal money to support opposition of the ballot initiative would directly harm CHF, and therefore held that CHF had shown the possibility of irreparable injury. Id. at *8. Regarding the public interest, the court opined that the public interest at issue was not concerning fresh, locally grown eggs, but about "protecting nothing less than the democratic process, federalism, and the rule of law." Id. at *9. Citing case precedent, the court stated that "[a] government agency's failure to comply with a statute invokes a public interest of the highest order," and reasoned that the public interest would be served by ensuring that federal officials did not illegally interfere with the state legislative process. Id. The court therefore imposed a temporary preliminary injunction, to remain in place until after Election Day or until final judgment on the merits of the case were rendered, whichever came first. Id. at *9.
The case was decided on September 29, 2008.