United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. United States Department of…

Background

The Federal Meat Inspection Act requires federal inspectors from the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to inspect hogs before and after slaughter. FSIS traditionally regulated the speed of evisceration lines—the lines carrying carcasses through evisceration and inspection.

In 2019, FSIS adopted the optional New Swine Inspection System (NSIS). The system transferred some sorting and inspection-related work to slaughterhouses, reduced the number of FSIS online inspectors, and eliminated evisceration line-speed limits for NSIS facilities. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union and three local chapters challenged that elimination under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that FSIS failed to consider worker safety.

The court had previously dismissed the unions’ separate challenge to the Final Rule’s reduction in inspectors because they lacked standing for that challenge. The remaining claim concerned the elimination of line-speed limits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and USDA separately asked the court to return the rule to the agency without setting it aside.

Standing

The court held that the unions had associational standing, meaning they could sue on behalf of members whose interests were related to the unions’ purposes and whose requested remedy did not require individualized proof of damages. The unions’ members worked in pork-processing plants, including on evisceration lines and kill floors affected by evisceration speeds.

The court found evidence that faster line speeds created a substantial and imminent risk of concrete physical injuries. Members described risks and injuries involving lacerations, repetitive-stress conditions, cuts caused by nearby workers, and hogs falling from the line. The court also relied on research and reports from the Government Accountability Office, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and academic researchers linking line speed with workplace injury risks.

The court rejected USDA’s argument that injuries were not traceable to the Final Rule because pork-processing plants would make independent decisions about work pace. The court reasoned that increased production speed was an intended and predictable effect of eliminating the limits, and that the rule authorized speeds that otherwise would not have complied with the existing regulations. The unions therefore established standing to challenge the line-speed provision.

Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The APA requires an agency to engage in reasoned decision-making and prohibits action that is arbitrary and capricious. An agency must consider important aspects of the problem, respond to significant public comments, and explain a change from a prior policy or position.

The court found that FSIS had historically considered worker safety when making inspection-related rules, even though the agency had maintained that it could not impose requirements focused solely on workplace safety. In the proposed NSIS rule, FSIS expressly stated that evaluating line speed’s effects on food safety should include its effects on establishment employees. FSIS also specifically requested comments about faster line speeds and worker safety.

After receiving many comments raising safety concerns, FSIS adopted the line-speed elimination. The Final Rule summarized the comments but did not analyze or evaluate them. Instead, FSIS stated that it lacked the authority or expertise to regulate establishment worker safety and that OSHA was responsible for workplace safety. The court found that this response did not address whether worker safety should affect FSIS’s decision about line speeds. It also found that FSIS did not explain its apparent departure from its earlier practice of considering worker safety or reconcile its treatment of worker safety with the separate safety-attestation requirement it adopted in the same rule.

The court rejected USDA’s litigation explanations because an agency generally must defend its decision based on the reasons it gave when it acted. The court concluded that FSIS failed to consider an important aspect of the line-speed decision and failed to engage in reasoned decision-making. It therefore held that the elimination of NSIS line-speed limits was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.

Remedy and Disposition

The court determined that the line-speed provision was severable from the rest of the NSIS rule. In other words, the NSIS could continue to operate without the provision eliminating line-speed limits, and the court found it likely that FSIS would have adopted the remainder of the system even if the limits had remained.

The court declined USDA’s request for remand without vacatur. It found that the agency’s deficiencies were serious because it was unclear whether FSIS could correct the problem without taking a new agency action. The court also found that USDA and industry participants had not adequately shown that vacating only the line-speed provision would cause the disruptions they described.

The order’s specific dispositions were:

- The unions’ motion for summary judgment on Count 1 was granted in part. The Final Rule was vacated only insofar as it eliminates line-speed limits under the NSIS. - USDA’s motion for summary judgment was denied. - USDA’s motion for remand without vacatur was denied. - The case was remanded to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service for further consideration. - The order and entry of judgment were stayed for 90 days to give the agency and regulated entities time to decide how to proceed and prepare for operational changes.