|
 |
resources
|
resources > lawsuit: USDA
USDA REMOVED ANIMAL WELFARE DOCUMENTS FROM WEBSITE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND VIEW UPDATE: APHIS WAS REQUIRED BY LAW TO RESTORE RECORDS TO WEBSITE AND BEGIN RE-POSTING. Animal Folks joined legal actions against the USDA "The animals lose when data is hidden," says Ann Olson, Animal Folks Founder and Executive Director. "By removing animal welfare documents from the APHIS website, the USDA made it difficult to obtain timely information about Animal Welfare Act (AWA) licensees, including dog breeders, research labs, exhibitors, and other regulated entities. Without access to the online databases, the public cannot easily see what violations are cited or if animals are being harmed at the facilities." Animal Folks was one plaintiff that sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) for removal of animal welfare documents from its website. Categories of records included inspection reports, research facility annual reports, and enforcement action records. See details below. The lawsuit was led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) and also included Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! and the Companion Animal Protection Society, and represented pro bono by Margaret Kwoka, Associate Professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Animal Folks would regularly review USDA documents posted online to assess breeder conduct and violation of law and, where appropriate, include these reports in animal cruelty complaints. Being able to also assess USDA enforcement actions, such as warnings ad settlement agreements, allowed us and others to assess when and if the USDA was enforcing federal law and imposing sanctions.
UPDATE: DOCUMENTS RE-POSTED ONLINE In December 2019, the Further Consolidated Appropriates Act was signed into law and required APHIS to restore previously removed document to its websites and to continue reposting documents at issue. Refer to Section 788 of 2020 Pub. L. No. 116-94 ("Act") for details.
It appears the USDA-APHIS has complied with the Act by putting records back online in 2020. We will continue to monitor their actions and compliance. _______________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
DATES On December 20, 2019, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed into law. This Act required APHIS to restore previously removed documents and to continue posting on its websites. On August 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed the District Court's holding that the court did not have jurisdiction. See:
On December 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard oral arguments from the Animal Legal Defense Fund in the lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
On February 2, 2018, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed its opening brief appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit challenging the USDA animal welfare report blackout.
On September 13, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On August 14, 2017, the District Court granted USDA and APHIS's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 29, 2017, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a motion to restore the USDA animal welfare documents for public viewing. Animal Folks is part of a coalition, led by ALDF, that moved for this preliminary injunction asking for a court order that would bring federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) databases back online.
On February 23, 2017, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that removal of online animal welfare records violates the Freedom of Information Act and the Administative Procedure Act. Animal Folks is a plaintiff in this lawsuit against the USDA.
On February 3, 2017, the USDA abruptly removed two databases from its website. This action removed critical animal welfare documents fomr the public's view.
OVERVIEW On February 3, 2017, the USDA abruptly removed animal welfare documents from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) website. These documents included inspection reports (such as for dog breeding facilities), regulatory correspondence (such as official warnings), research facility annual reports, enforcement records (such as pre-litigation settlement agreements and administrative complaints), and other materials. Numerous organizations, agencies, journalists, and citizens accessed this data for years in order to protect animals, report findings, and hold abusers and the government accountable. Animal Folks use these documents when filing complaints with local law enforcement against dog breeders (and breeders of other species), pet stores, and other entities suspected of animal cruelty. The documents are also used when filing complaints with the USDA to request revocation of a breeder's license, enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, and other related noncompliance issues. Animal Folks has also used these documents when lobbying at the State Capitol for animal protection bills as well as when testifying in MN counties and cities in support of local ordinances that protect animals. Freedom of Information Act: FOIA The USDA stated these documents would still be available through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Animal Folks frequently makes data requests through FOIA; however, the data often takes many months (even over a year) to receive and much of the data is heavily redacted (which is a separate legal issue from this lawsuit). Having data easily accessible online allows us to file complaints in a timely manner, which protects animals; it also allows us and others to raise awareness about immediate animal welfare issues, and monitor enforcement actions (good or bad) conducted by the USDA. "Long delays in processing federal FOIA requests already hinder the public and journalists in obtaining information that's essential to ensuring that government is truly working for the people," says Doug Haddix, executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors, as quoted in National Geographic. "Anyone concerned about responsible and transparent government should be alarmed by the USDA's action." We agree. Update: Editor's Note and USDA response On February 7, the USDA released a statement (Editor's Note) attempting to clarify its original announcement. The USDA claims their internal discussion about this decision started in 2016. This note also stated: "These decisions are not final. Adjustments may be made regarding information appropriate for release and posting." Animal Folks spoke with two individuals at the USDA about the agency's decision to remove the online information. They cited privacy concerns as the reason (justification) for the removal. Over a year ago, they claim, the Department of Justice asked that the agency review their online data to see if it meets the federal Privacy Act, and, they claim, current litigation involving the USDA also played a role in their decision. We asked the USDA for the specific sections in the Privacy Act and the litigation (if public) that provoked their "data removal" decision. The information was not provided. Animal Folks will FOIA it. NOTE: Matt Herrick, a former USDA Communications Director, Senior Advisor, tweeted: "Decision by usda 2 remove animal abuse records not required. Totally subjective. Same option given 2 past admin. We refused. #transparency." UPDATE: The Washington Post reported that a horse lawsuit (involving soring) may have prompted the USDA's decision to remove animal welfare reports from the APHIS website. UPDATE: On February 17, 2017, the USDA announced that they were re-posting on their website some documents from certain Federal research facilities. _______________________________________________________________
ANNOUNCEMENT: ARTICLES AND OPINIONS USDA announcement:
This action attracted significant attention throughout the nation. Below are a few articles and comments:
DONATE TODAY Please support our efforts to protect animals. Donate today.
|
 |
"));
