(ANIMAL WELFARE) In February of last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) abruptly removed all animal welfare data from its website, including inspection reports and enforcement records regarding the treatment of animals at research labs, dog breeding operations, zoos, circuses, theme parks like SeaWorld, and other facilities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).

A coalition of animal rights groups, including the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), filed suit in response, arguing the decision to remove these records stands in violation of both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The lawsuit was initially dismissed, but in last week’s appeal, ALDF filed its opening brief arguing that the FOIA statue requires any document requested via an individual FOIA request three times must be placed in a reading room.

Animal welfare records are necessary to legally advocate for animals, but obtaining animal welfare records through traditional FOIA requests can be costly and take several months or even years to process.

If successful, the ALDF’s appeal could potentially lay the groundwork for legal recourse against future information blackouts from other government agencies. Read on to learn more about the FOIA and APA claims defended in the brief. — Global Animal

Despite popular belief, farm animals are regulated under the USDA’s Animal Welfare Act (AWA) only when used in biomedical research and testing–not when they are farmed for food. This is why ag-gag laws, meant to silence whistleblowers from revealing animal abuse on factory farms, are particularly dangerous. Photo Credit: animalsaustralia.org

Animal Legal Defense Fund

SAN FRANCISCO – Today the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed its opening brief, appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) animal welfare report blackout. The group, leading a coalition of animal protection organizations, filed suit in February 2017 arguing that the USDA’s decision to remove the records previously posted in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) database violates both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

United States District Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the lawsuit, asserting that FOIA does not provide a remedy to enforce the government’s obligation to publish certain types of records. In today’s brief, the Animal Legal Defense Fund argues that FOIA provides jurisdiction to the district court — and to assert that the court does not, is tantamount to erasing the reading room requirement from the statute.

Reading rooms — formerly actual rooms with reading material filed for review — have been replaced by “electronic” reading rooms, in the form of website and document databases, like the APHIS database. The FOIA statue requires that any document that is requested via an individual FOIA request three times must be placed in a reading room.

“The suggestion that there is no legal recourse against government agencies’ noncompliance with the reading room provisions of the Freedom of Information Act would lay the groundwork for future blackouts of information from additional agencies with no checks,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells.

“FOIA was clearly established to provide Americans the right to review, in a timely manner, regularly requested records — and the animal welfare records are crucial to our work as legal advocates for animals.”

Animal protection coalition continues to fight for animal welfare records to be restored online, including records pertaining to animal treatment at research labs. Photo Credit: ALDF

The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s claims under the APA are also defended in the brief. The APA authorizes courts to set aside agency actions if they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” if there is no adequate alternative remedy available elsewhere in the law.

Without addressing whether the USDA’s action was arbitrary or capricious, the court dismissed the APA claim on the basis that FOIA provides an adequate remedy because coalition members could submit a traditional FOIA request to the USDA for records. But obtaining animal welfare records through traditional FOIA requests significantly burdens countless animal protection organizations and other agencies. Records which were previously immediately accessible at no cost now require each individual organization to manage voluminous FOIA requests that take several months or even years to process, not to mention the possibility of large fees.

The organizations in the coalition led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, include Stop Animal Exploitation NOW!, Companion Animal Protection Society and Animal Folks. They are represented pro bono by Margaret Kwoka, Associate Professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

More ALDF: http://aldf.org/press-room/press-releases/update-usda-records-blackout-litigation-animal-legal-defense-fund-files-opening-brief-appealing-dismissal-lawsuit-usda/