Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Unsuccessful Opposition to 2008 Farm Bill's Country of Origin Labeling Requirements

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Easterday Ranches, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. CV-08-5067-RHW, 2008 WL 4426004 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2008), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction against the USDA's promulgated Interim Final Rule adopting the 2008 Farm Bill's country of origin labeling requirements, for failure to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits.

Background

The plaintiff challenged a promulgated USDA Interim Final Rule implementing 7 U.S.C. § 1638a (a provision of the 2008 Farm Bill) country of origin notice requirements, and sought an injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect on September 30, 2008. Id. at *1.

Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the USDA's action in promulgating the Interim Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious, because the USDA failed to consider its effect on preexisting Treasury Department country of origin labeling rules, and thus should be set aside pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at *2.

The USDA argued that its Interim Final Rule would not conflict with the Tariff Act of 1930 or overlap other federal rules. Id. at *2-3.

Analysis and Holdings

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest. Id. at *1. The court found that the record indicated that the USDA did consider the Treasury rules cited by the plaintiff, and found that the current Interim Final Rule would not overlap or duplicate any other federal rules. Id. at *2-3. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and dismissed the complaint. Id. at *4.

The case was decided on September 25, 2008.