State of New York v. United States Department of Agriculture

Background

The plaintiff States and the District of Columbia challenged a 2018 United States Department of Agriculture rule concerning nutrition standards for school breakfasts and lunches. The rule delayed the implementation of a stricter sodium target, eliminated the 2012 rule’s final sodium-reduction targets, and removed the requirement that schools ultimately serve only whole-grain-rich products. The 2018 rule instead required that half of a school’s weekly grain products be whole-grain rich. States could impose stricter requirements than the federal standards.

The plaintiffs alleged that the 2018 rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was issued without the required notice and opportunity for public comment, was inconsistent with federal school-nutrition laws and nutrition recommendations, and was arbitrary and capricious. They sued in both their parens patriae capacity—asserting interests in the welfare of their residents—and their proprietary capacity—asserting their own financial interests.

Motion and Standing Issues

The USDA and the other defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, meaning they had not shown a legally sufficient injury that was caused by the challenged rule and could be addressed by a court decision.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ asserted healthcare-cost injury was too speculative and was not fairly traceable to the 2018 rule. They also argued that the plaintiffs’ parens patriae claims against the federal government were barred and that the District of Columbia lacked the necessary sovereignty for such a claim.

The court did not decide whether a State may bring a parens patriae action against the federal government in this setting, or whether the plaintiffs had adequately alleged a quasi-sovereign interest. Because the court found that the States had standing based on their proprietary interests, it did not need to resolve those issues. The court also did not need to decide whether the District of Columbia’s asserted regulatory burden independently established standing, because only one plaintiff needed standing for the case to proceed.

Court’s Analysis

The States alleged that the 2018 rule could lead to less healthy school meals, resulting in adverse health effects among children and higher healthcare costs for the States. The court found that the complaint adequately connected sodium and whole-grain requirements to health risks and connected those risks to possible increased healthcare spending.

The court rejected the argument that the alleged injury was too speculative. It reasoned that the 2018 rule had already been issued and put into effect, so the alleged risk was sufficiently imminent. The court also noted that the complaint relied on the USDA’s own prior findings concerning links among diet, health problems, and medical costs.

The court treated the defendants’ challenge as a facial jurisdictional motion because the defendants had not offered affirmative evidence contradicting the plaintiffs’ plausible allegations. The plaintiffs therefore could rely on the allegations in their amended complaint at this stage.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. held that the plaintiff States had adequately alleged an injury in fact to their proprietary interests and had established standing. The court therefore denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ APA claims or whether the 2018 rule was lawful.