Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

APHIS's Decision to Allow Controversial Taiwanese Imports
Was Not Arbitrary, Capricious, or Otherwise Unlawful

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Hawai'i Orchid Growers Association v. Johanns, 249 Fed. App'x 204 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Plaintiff, an orchid growers association, brought the instant action against APHIS regarding a final rule promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that added Taiwanese orchids to a list of plants that could be imported under certain conditions. The court held that APHIS's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.

Background

In 1994, Taiwan asked APHIS to loosen restrictions on the importation of Taiwan's Phalaenopsis orchids. Id. at 204. APHIS responded in 1998 by publishing in the Federal Register a proposed amendment to permit the orchids to be imported in growing media. Id. As required by the ESA, APHIS conducted a notice and comment period, and subsequently engaged in consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service to examine whether the amendment would jeopardize endangered or threatened species of plants or animals. Id. In 2004, APHIS published its final rule permitting the Taiwanese orchids to be imported in growing media. Id. Plaintiff organization challenged the final rule in court on the basis that the ESA § 7 consultation process was flawed. Id. The district court granted APHIS's motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appealed. Id.

Arguments

Plaintiff argued that APHIS prevailed on the Fish and Wildlife Service to approve the rule, despite the grave risks to the ESA-listed species in Hawaii, by failing to disclose adverse scientific and commercial data. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff claimed that APHIS had a duty to supplement the administrative record it shared with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The instant court failed to give any credence to Plaintiff's arguments. Id. Although APHIS's explanation of why thrips were unlikely to be included in commercial shipments of the Taiwanese orchids was "admittedly puzzling," the court reviewed the decision according to the Administrative Procedure Act's deferential arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. at 205-06. The burden of showing arbitrariness was on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff failed to meet its burden. Id.

The case was decided on June 28, 2008.