Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedur e 25(d), Tom Vilsack is substitut ed as Sec reta ry 1 for his pre dece ssor, Ed Schaf er, Sec reta

ry of the U.S. De partment of A g riculture. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) F ARM- TO-CONSUMER LEGAL DEF ENSE FUND , e t al

. , )

) ) P laintif fs, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1546 (RM C) ) TOM VILSACK, Sec ret ary, U. S. D EP AR TM EN T OF AG RI CU LTU RE , e t al . , 1 ) ) ) ) Defendan ts. ) )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiffs sue the Secr etar y of the U.S. De partment of A g riculture ( “USDA” ) and the Direc tor of the Michig an Depa rtment of Ag riculture ( “MDA” ) see king to e njoin the implementation and enf orce ment of the National A n im a l I d e n ti f

ic a tion Sy stem (“NA I S”). Plaintiffs object to MDA’s tr ans iti on fr om the un iqu e state -c re a te d a nim a l and pr e mis e s id e nti fi c a tio n s y ste m to the natio na lly

un if or m N AI S. B e fo re the Cou rt a re USD A’ s mo tio n to di sm is s and MD A’ s mo tio n to dis mis s and/or for

summary

judgme nt. For the re as o n s expl ained he rein, the Court will g rant USDA’ s motion to di smiss under Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (1), a nd will gr ant MDA’s motion for summary judgme nt under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 56. I. F AC TS Th e ind ivi du a l Pla int if

fs are fa rm e rs wh o ra ise liv e sto c k in a su sta ina ble mann e r, a ll but one of whom live in Michig an. The lead Plaintiff is an advoc acy g roup of whic h eac h individualAn RFI D tagis an object that can be applied to or i ncorpor ated into a produc t, animal, or 2 person f or the purpose of identification and trac king using radio wa ves. Pla int if fs ’ r e lig iou s b e lie fs inc lud e the be lie f t hat th e y a re “ e nd ow e d by the ir

Cr e a tor wi th 3 dominion and control over a ll the animals on ear th.” P ls.’ Opp’n to MDA’ s Mot. to Dism iss and/or for Summ. J . at 15. This relig ious tenet asser tedly is v i olated by

NAI S “beca

use dominion and control has now been transfe rre d to USDA and MDA.” Id. Fur ther, Plaintiffs believe “they are not a llo we d to take ‘t

he mark ’ o f N AI S” and th at the imp os iti on of PI Ns a nd RF I Ds c a

us e s th e m to violate this tenet of their r elig ion as well. Id. Plaintiffs Glen Mast and Rober t Alexander, who a

re Old Orde r Amish, alleg e fur ther injury : “ one tenet of their beliefs is that they must be far

mers, y et the cost of c omply ing w ith NAI S is prohibitive and may forc e these two Plainti ffs to quit far ming altog ether .” Id. Ad dit ion a lly , the ir re lig iou s be lie fs e sc he w t e c hn olo g y , d ir e c tly c on tr a ry to t he us e of RF I Ds , s c a nn e rs a nd

c omp ute r p ro g ra

ms, a nd dis c oura g e the m f

ro m outsi de c on ta c t, y e t th e ir private data is stored in a national database

. See id. -2- Plaintiff is a member. They complain that USDA is “ destroying the ir pleasa nt ag ricultural wa

y of life” by developing the NAI S. Pls.’ Opp’n to USDA’s Mot

. to Dismiss at 6. Plaintiffs assert that NAI S requires Pre mises I dentification Numbers (“ PI Ns”) f or ea ch of their far

ms and ra dio freque ncy identification devic es (“ RFI Ds”) for e ach of their cattle, both of which re sult in t h e coll ection of 2 informati o n i n t o a h ug e national database ag ainst their wills and in violation of their relig ious beliefs. Be cause the M DA has adopted the NAI S format to identify individual cattle, impos es PI Ns 3 on their fa

rms, and re quires RFI D tag s when c attle are moved intrastate to marke t or slaug hter, Pla int if fs c omp la in t

hat it is c omp lic it w ithUSD A a nd a lso vio la tin g the ir

ri g hts

. A. The National Animal Identifi cation System Commencing in 2003, U SDA has taken steps to de velop the NAI S, a Fe dera l-StateI ndustry initiative that is designed to tra ce a nimals so th at t hose assoc iated with an incide nt of a livestock diseas e such as bovine tuberc ulosis (“TB ”) c an be ide ntified and the disea se conta ined. See 6 9 F e d

. Re g . 3 5 , 5 7 5 ( Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 )

. U SD A is s u e d a n in te r im r u le in N o v e mb e r 2004 and a final rule in July 2007, amending its re g ulations to recog nize the NAI S identification format a s an-3-

additional numbering sy stem to identify animals in interstate commerc e and the premises whe re the y

are held. See 69 Fe d. Reg . 64,644 (Nov. 8, 2004); 72 Fe d

. R eg. 39,301 (Jul y 18, 2007). Conceptually

at least, NA I S is i ntended to identify with particular ity

all livestock and poultry enter ing the food chain throug h interstate commerce and the f arms fr om which they

came . Plaintiffs

are a larm e d b y

su c h a g a rg a ntu a n c oll e c tio n o f p e rs on a l in fo rm a tio n a bo ut t hems elv es and

the ir livelihoods. See 1st Am. Compl . ¶ 46 (“ I n the 2004 interi m ru l e, USDA r ecog nized the massive scope of NAI S, acknow ledg ing the prese nce of over one milli on cattle pr oducer s and 95 million beef

and da ir y c a ttl e in t he Un ite d St a te s, no t in c lud ingho g s, sh e e p, po ult ry and oth e r d ome sti c anim a ls, which would ‘ne ed to be identified if the NAI S were to be fully implemented.’” ). Eac h of the individual Pl aintiffs “ha [s] either alre ady decide d that comply ing with NAI S is t oo costly and thus [t hey ] wil l have to quit far ming a ltoge ther, that it infring es on their pe rsonal fr eedoms a nd invades their privac y , or that the NA I S prog ram violates their relig ious free doms and beliefs.” Id. ¶ 3. NAI S has three c omponents: (1) pre mises identif i ca t i on (locations that manag e or hold animals), which c onstitut es a unique seven- char acte r identifier ; (2) animal identific ation (either ind ivi du a lly

or wi th a g ro up /lo t numb e r) , whi c h ass oc ia te s an a nim a l w itha

pr e mis e s and

g ive s it s bir thp la c e ; and

(3 ) a nim a l tr a c kin g , s o th a t a s an a nim a l mo ve s f

ro m on e to a

no ther pre mis e s, its individual number will be associate d with the new premises identification number. The Animal a nd Plant Health I nspection Service , a component ag ency of USDA, administers the Animal Hea lth and Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 8301 et seq. , wh ic h e mpo we rs the Se c re tary of USD A to c on tr ol i nte rs ta te and foreig n commerc e in animals whe n nece ssary for the c ontrol of animal disea se. I t has deve loped NAI S as part of

th a t e f f o rt. N e it h e r th e r e g u lati o n s is s u e d

b y U SD A n o r

an y r u le s o r g u id a n ce documents i ssued by USDA t o develop aspects of N AI S gove rn the intrastate movement of c attle.-4-

Dec isions to us e NAI S compliant identifiers for the intrastate move ment of cattle are made by the state s. B. MDA Adoption of NAIS F orm at Pla int if fs c omp la in t

hat U S DA “ is u sin g the State of Mic hig a n a s a

pu pp e t to implement NAI S in Mi chig an under the g uise of eradicating TB, a disease that is not being cause d by animals on far

ms but rather i s b ei n g cause d by wildlife in Michiga

n.” 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 58. MDA re torts that it has ex erc ised its own discretion , o v er a period of y ear s, to require animal identification and pr emises identification in an effor t to eradic ate b o v i n e TB in the state, and independe ntly

decide d to require PI

Ns and RFI D tag s for c attle being moved within Michiga n. Michig an’s Animal Industry Act, Mich. Comp. L aws § 287.701 et seq ., is simi lar t o the fe d er al l aw in that its purpose is “to protect the he alth, safe ty , and we lfare of humans and animals.” Id. § 287.701(2). Section 9(8) of that law a uthorizes the Direc tor of the MDAto require the identification of animals and to control their move ments intrastate:

Th e dir e c tor

may de ve lop , im

ple me nt, and

e nf or c e sc ie nti fi c a lly based move ment restric tions and require ment s including of ficial bo vin e tub e rc ulo sis te st r e qu ir e me nts , p ri or mov e me nt pe rm its , officia l intrastate hea lth certificates or animal movement ce rtificate s to acc ompany

movement of a

nimals, and offic ial identificatio n of animals for movement betwee n or within a disease fre e zone, surv e ill a nc e zon e , a nd a n inf e c te d zon e , or a ny

c omb inatio n o f t

ho se zon e s. Id. § 287.709(8). The Act also require s that “[a]ll cattle, g oats, sheep, and privately owned c ervids [(deer) ] shall bear off

icial identification before they leave a pre mises.” Id. § 287.711b(1). “ Offic ial identification” is def

ined as “ an identification ear ta g , tattoo, electr onic identification, or other id e n ti f ic a ti o n a s a

p p r o v e d b y th e U n it e d St a te s d e p a rtm e n t o f a g r ic u lt u r e o r th e [M D A ]. ” Id.Th e USD A c la ssi fi e s ea c h sta te fo r bov ine TB

. A zone c omp ri sin g le ss tha n ane nti re state 4 will be g iven upon re quest of that state if the USDA deter mines t h at (a ) t h e s t ate mee ts the re qu ir eme nt s of 9 C. F .R. Part 77 ; ( b) the state ha s im

po se d s imi lar r e str ic tio ns on the int ra state mov e me nt o f c a ttl e , bis on and cap tiv e c e rv ids a s th os e imp os e d b y the USD A o n in te rs ta te movement; and (c ) t h e d es i gn ati on of par t of a state a s a zone will be ade quate to pre vent the interstate spre ad of tube rculosis. See 9 C. F .R. § 77. 3. Whe n a st a te a pp lie s f or sp lit -s ta te status , it must, among othe r re quirements, ente r into an MOU with USDA. See id. § 77.4(a) (3). -5- § 2 87 .7 06 (2 ). I n a dd iti on , th e Ac t r e qu ir e s id e nti fi c a tio n o f a ll c a ttl e , b iso n, goats and pr ivate ly

ow ne d c e rv id w he n e ith e r p re se nte d at any liv e sto c k a

uc tio n mar ket or

mark e te d f

or imm e diate slaug hter. Id. § 287.733(2) & (3).

Bovine TB was discovere d in Mic higa n cattle in 1998, appar ently transmitted from wild deer . There afte r, the Dire ctor of the MDA issued a series of order s pursuant to Section 9(8) of the Act e stablishing zones within Michiga n based on the preva lence of the disea se, setting testing require ments, imposing movement restrictions and re quiring animal and pr emises identification. As part of this on-g oing TB eradic ation prog ram, the D irec tor issued an orde r ef fec tive Marc h 10, 2002, establishing thr ee zones within t he state: (1) an infe cted zone consistingof four northea st L ower Peninsula counties; (2) a

surveillance zone of si x counties surrounding the infec ted z one; and (3) a disease f ree zone constituti ng all the re maining c ounties in Michig an. SeeMD A’ s Mo t. t o D ism iss and/or for Summ. J ., App. at 10-11 (MDA Orde r Effe ctive Marc h 10, 2002). “O ff icial identification” w as require d of “any domestic livestock” in a ny of the three zones that moved from any premises within the state. See id. I n the infec ted zone, the use of e lectronic identification wa s “strong ly encour ag ed.” Id. at 10. Thi s order was issued in conjunc tion with a 2002 Memorandum of Unde rstanding ( “M OU ”) b etwee n Michig an and U SDA, by which USDA a g ree d to the maintenanc e of split status zones for bovine TB in Michiga

n. The purpose of the 2002 MOU w as 4 to “ e sta bli shc ri te ri a

fo r t he mai nte na

nc e of sp lit status zon e s f

or bo vin e tub e rc ulo sis (T B ) i n-6-

Michig an.” Id. at 27 (2002 MOU) . The 2002 MOU de fined “ domestic livestock” a s “all cattle, g oats, bison, and privately owned c ervide s.” Id. Z ones were e stablished in Michiga n by the 2002 MO U b a se d o n th e ri sk

le ve l f or bo vin e TB . T he 20 02 MO U “ did no t est a bli sh the us e of

e le c tr on ic

ear tag s as a condition of maintaining zone status.” Id. at 1-9 (A ff. of Kevin Kirk ( “Kirk A ff.” ) ¶ 8)

. The ne x t order w as ef

fec tive October

1, 2002, and modi fied the Marc h 10, 2002 order by requiringthat “[a]ll herds in the Dise ase F ree Z one must obtain a premises identification number issued by the depa rtment befor e any

movement of livestock f

rom such her ds may

occur ,” and that

“ [a]ll c a ttl e (b ov ine ) [i n th e inf e c te d a nd surv e ill a nc e zon e s] be ing te ste d a s pa rt of a wh ole he rd

te st to satisfy surveillance herd te st i ng require ments shall be identified with Radio Fr equenc y I dentification (RFI D) ‘e lectronic ’ e ar t ag s except under spe cial cir cumstance s approve d by the d i re ctor.” Id. a t 1 2

- 1 3 ( M D A O r d e r E f f e c ti v e O c to b e r 1 , 2 0 0 2 )

. T h e RF I D e a r ta g s and pre mises identification we re not based on the NAI S pr otocol, but on an MDA identifica tion sy stem. See Kirk Aff. ¶ 7 (“The RFI D ea

r tag s were n o t i n t h e NA I S fo rm at as ther e wa s no NAI S prog ram at that time.”). The ne x t releva nt Direc tor’s orde r bec ame e ffe ctive on June 1, 2 0 0 4

. I t require d NAI S-compliant identification of c attle in a limit ed are a of the State. Two zones wer e esta blished: (1) the modifie d acc redited zone c onsisting of 13 northea stern L ower Peninsula counties; and (2) the modified acc redited advanc ed zone, consisting of the re mainder of

the L ower

Peninsula counties and all the c o u n ti e s o f

th e U p p e r

Pe n in s u la

. F o r

c a tt le in th e 1 3

- c o u n ty

mo d if ie d a c c r e d it e d

ar e a , the J une 1, 2004 orde r required NAI S-compliant RFI D electronic ear tags when cattle were moved from a pre mises and when c attle on a pr emises wer e “initially identified” dur ing T B te sting. I t stated:This provision reflec ts the MDA’s indepe ndent dec ision to use this method of tracki ng 5 c a ttl e in t his zon e , a

nd the USD A’ s d e te rm inatio n th a t th e us e of thi s me tho d w a s a c c e pta ble to c on tin ue sp lit -s ta te status

. Pla int if fs all ege tha t MD A h a d im ple me nte d th e e nti re NA I S pr og ra m in vo lvi nga ll 6 livestock and poultry

at all pre mises in Michiga n but the 2005 MOU in fac t was more limited. The Marc h 1, 2007 MDA orde r has be en re vised by subsequent orde rs of August 15, 2007, 7 and May 1, 2008, but it remains fundame ntally the same. -7- All cattle must be identified with RFI D Elec tronic identifica tion ea rt ag s prior to movement fr om a pre mises within the Modified A c c r e d i t e d

Z o n e . In i t i a l i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n o f c a t t l e m u s tu t i l i z e an

R F ID Electr o n ic identification earta g issued by the Michig an De partment of Ag ri c ult ur e to t he pr e mis e s at w hic h th e ide nti fi c a tio n o c c ur s. Id. at 14 (MDA Order E ffe ctive June 1, 2004). MDA dec ided to require RFI D tag s “not bec ause of

an y in f lu e n c e b y th e U SD A , b u t b e c a

u s e o f f a v o r a b le r e s u lt s f

r o m pr io r u s e o f e le c tr o n ic e a r ta g s [, ]” including “ [t ]he acc urac y of the data and im proved speed and ease of trac eability . . . .” Kirk A ff. ¶ 8. F or cattle in the remainde r of Michig an, the or der r equire d “o ff i ci al i dentification,” which

me ant a n M DA a nim a l ide nti fi c a tio n nu mbe r bu t no t nu mbe rs in the NA I S fo rm a t or RF I D e a r t a g s. MDA and U SDA enter ed into a n o th e r MOU in 2005. This MOU ena bled the cr eation of three zones within t he state, including a tuberc ulosis acc redited free zone. Pursuant to the 2005 MO U, MD A a c cept ed re sp on si bi li ty for “[ r] equ ir in g elect ron ic i den tif ic a tio n a nd a mov e me nt p e rm it for a ny cattle moved f

rom [a] premises in the Modified A ccr edited zone.” Id. at 47 (2005 MOU)

. 5 Be cause NAI S-compliant identification had alre ady been ordere d by the Director in J une 2004 in the mod if ie d a c c re dit e d zo ne , th e 20 05 MO U c o m m i tt e d M D A t o c o n t i n u i n g N A I S- c omp lia

nt e le c tr on ic

e ar t a g s f or c a ttl e , b ut o nly

in t ho se Mic hig a n c ounti e s. 6 The fina l releva

nt Direc tor’s orde r bec ame effe ctive on Marc h 1, 2007. That orde r 7 require d “NAI S c ompliant RF I D tag s for all cattle moved f rom their pre mises, and all cattle testedPlaintiff G reg Niewe ndorp had premises in the modified acc redited zone but he has since 8 moved of state a

nd no longe r owns cattle in Michiga n. See Me m. in Sup p. of Pl. Ni e we nd or p’ s Mo t. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 49] . As his claims are now moot, he will be dismissed for that re ason. -8- in the modified ac cre dited zone reg ardle ss of any movement fr o m the pre mises.” Kirk Af f. ¶ 10. The orde r stated:

E f f e c t i v e M a r c h 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a l l c a t t l e m u s t b e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h R F ID elec tronic identification earta g s prior to movement from a pr emises w it h in M ic h ig a n , u n le s s e xe mp te d b y th e d ir e c to r . I nitial identification of cattle must utiliz e an RFI D elec tronic identification ear tag issued by

the Michig an De partment of A g ricu l t u re to the pr e mis e s a t w hic h th e ide nti fi c a tio n o c c ur s. Id

. a t1 7 ( M D A O r d e r

E f f e c t i v e M a r c h 1 , 2 0 0 7 )

. “ T h e d e c i s i o n t o i d e n t i f y a l l c a t t l e w i t h N A IS compliant RFI D ea

r tag s was not be cause of any influence of the USDA. MDAcould see the re al benef its of acc urate data in the databa se for trac king animals and the labor and time saving s.” Kirk Af f. ¶ 10

. Ho we ve r, MD A pr ov ide d a n e xemp tio n to a c c omm od a te the re lig iou s c on c e rn s f or tho se far mers outside of the modifie d acc redited z o n e. See id. a t 65 (D e c . 2 0, 20 06 Me mor a nd um t o Conc e rn e d Pr od

uc e rs ). Th e a c c omm od a tio n a llo ws lic e ns e d li ve sto c k ma rk e ts t o s e ll a

nd a pp ly RFI D tag s at marke t, thereby allowing relig ious objectors outside of the modified ac cre dited zone to avoid tag g ing the ir animals prior to movement. All of the individual P l ai n t iffs have premises outside of the mo dified ac cre dited zone. Thus, they are all elig ible to take adva ntag e of the 8 exemption. C. Co m pla intAl le ga ti ons

Plaintiffs’ First Amende d Complaint contains 426 parag raphs, 20 pray ers f or re lief, and e le v e nc o u n ts , f

iv e o f w h ic h a r e d ir e c te d

a t e a c h U SD A a n d

M D A a n d

o n e d ir e c te d

a t b oth. Plaintiffs alleg e that NAI S violates (1) the proce dural requireme nts of the Administrative Proce dure-9-

Act (“ APA”), 5 U .S.C. § 551 et seq. (Count I ); (2 ) t h e p rocedural r equire ments of the Reg ulatory Flexibili ty

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (Count I I ); (3) the substantive require ments of the APA (Count I I I ); (4) pr ocedur al and substantive due proce ss unde r the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Consti tution (Count I V); (5) the National Environme ntal Policy Act (“ NEPA”), 42 U .S.C. § 4321 et seq. (Count VI ); and (6) the Religious F ree dom Restoration Act (“ RFRA”) , 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (Count VI I ). Plaintiffs al l ege t hat Michig an’s implementation of N AI S violates (1) proc edura l and substantive due proc ess under the Four teenth Amendme nt to the U.S

. Constit ution (Count V); (2) the NEPA (Count VI ); (3) the RFRA (Count VI I I ); (4) the proce dural re quirements of Michig an’s Administrative Procedur e Act (“MAPA” ), Mi ch. Comp. L aws § 24.201 et seq. (Count I X); (5) the sub s ta n ti v e r e qu ir e me n ts o f

M A PA( Co u n t X ) ; a

n d ( 6 ) th e f r e e e xe r c is e c la

u s e o f M ic h ig a n ’s Constit ution ( Count XI ). Plaintiffs a ssert that the Court ha s fede ral que stion jurisdi ction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the alleg ations asserting violations of fede ral law (C o u n t s I -VI I I ), and supplemental jurisdiction over the alleg ations asserting violations of Michiga n law (Counts I X-XI ). II. LEGAL STANDARDS US DA m o v es t o d i s m i s s t h e Fi rs t Am en d ed C o mp l ai n t fo r w a n t o f s t an d i n g. Acc ording ly , the Court will tre at USDA’s motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of subje ct matter jurisdiction unde r Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (1). See H aase v. Se ssions , 835 F.2d 902, 90 6 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 7) (“ the de fe c t of sta nd ingis a de fe c t in su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n” ); Prosser v. Fed. Agric. Mortgage Corp. , 593 F . Supp . 2d 1 50 , 1 55 (D .D .C. 20 09 ) ( “ With ou t st a nd ing , th e re is no subject matter jur isdiction.”). This is so even though the parties have pre sented matter s outside the pleading s. Se e Ha as e , 835 F.2d at 906

. MDA moves to dismiss t he F irst Amended Complaint for f ailure to state a

claim under Fe dera l Rule of C ivil P roce dure 12( b)(6) and moves for summary-10-

judgme nt under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 56. B eca use the pa

rties ha v e p resented matters outside the pleading s, the Court will treat MDA’s mot ion as a moti on for summary judgme nt. See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(d).

A. F ederal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 12( b)(1) F e de ra l c ourt s are c ourt s o f l imi te d ju ri sd ic tio n a

nd the law p re su me s th a t “ a c a us e lies outside this l imited jurisdiction.” Kokkone n v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Bec ause subject matter jurisdi ction is an Article I I Ias we ll as a statutory require ment, “no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a fede ral c ourt.” Akinsey e v. D istrict of C olu mb ia , 339 F.3d 9 7 0 , 9 7 1 (D

. C. Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and c itation omit ted). On a motion to di smiss for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil P roce dure 12(b)( 1), the plaintiff bear s the burden of establishing that the court ha s subject matter jurisdiction. R asu l v. B ush , 215 F . S up p. 2d 55 , 61 (D .D .C . 200 2) (cit i ng M c Nut t v . G e n. Mot or

s Ac c e pt anc e Cor

p. , 2 9 8 U .S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 -8 3 (1 9 3 6 )) ; Evans v. B .F. Perk ins Co. , 166 F.3d 642, 647 ( 4th Cir. 1999). B e c a us e su bje c t matt e r jur isd ic tio n foc us e s on the c ourt ’s po we r to he a r t he c la im, ho we ve r, the c ourt mus t g ive the pla int if f’ s fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns c los e r s c rutin y wh e n r e so lvi nga

Rul e 12 (b )( 1) mot ion tha

n wo uld be re qu ir e d fo r a Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion fo r fa ilure to st ate a cl aim. Macharia v. United States , 334 F.3d 61, 64, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Moreove r, the c ourt is not lim ited to the alleg ations contained in the complaint. Hohri v. United States , 782 F.2d 227, 241 ( D.C. Cir. 1986), vacate d on other grounds , 482 U.S. 64 (1 9 8 7 ). I nstead, to dete rmine whe ther it has jurisdiction ove r the claim, the court may consider materia ls outside the pleading s. Herbe rt v. Nat’l Ac ad . o f Sc is. , 974 F.2d 192, 197 ( D.C. Cir. 1992).-11- B. Fe deral Rule of Civil P roce dure 56 Under Rule 56 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure, summary judgme nt must be g rante d when “ the pleading s, depo s it io n s , a n s w e r s to in

te r r o g atories, a

nd admissions on file, toge ther with the aff

idavits, if any , show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fa ct and that the

mov ing pa

rt y is e nti tle d to a

jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l a w. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ); An de rso n v . Li be rty Lobby, Inc. , 4 77 U. S. 2 42 , 2 47 (1 98 6) ; se e als o Diamond v. Atwood , 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 ( D.C. Cir. 19 95 ). Mo re ov e r, su mma ry jud g me nt i s p ro pe rl y

g ra nte d a g a ins t a pa

rt y wh o “ a ft e r a de qu a te tim e for discove ry

and upon motion . . . fails to make a showing sufficie nt to establish the exi stence of an ele ment essen t i al to that party ’s ca se, and on w hich that par ty will bear the burden of

proof at trial.” Ce lot e

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). I n r uli ngon a mot ion f or su mma ry jud g me nt, the c ourt

mus t dr a w a ll j us tif

ia ble infere nces in the nonmoving p ar ty ’s favor and a cce pt the nonmoving pa rty ’s evidenc e as true

. Anderson , 4 7 7 U

. S. a t 2 5 5

. A n o n mo v in g p a rty , h o w e v e r , mu s t e s ta b li s h mo r e than “the me re exis tence of a sc intill a of e vidence ” in support of its position. Id. at 252. I n addition, the nonmoving party may not rely solely on alleg ations or conc lusory statements. Gree ne v. Dalton , 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Rather, the nonmoving party must present spec ific fa cts that would ena ble a

rea sonable jury

to fin d i n i t s fa v o r. Id. at 675. I f the e vidence “is mere ly colora ble, or is not signific antly

probative, sum m ar y judgme nt may be g rante d.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted). III . A NA LY SIS

De fe nd a nts mov e to d is mi ss all a lle g a tio ns a g a ins t e a c h o f t he m: the fi ve c ounts direc te d a t U SD A , th e f

iv e c o u n ts d ir e c te d a t M D A , a n d th e o n e c o u n t d ir e c te d a t b o th

. USDA-12-

argues that Plaintiffs lack standingbeca use their a lleg ed injuries ar e not fairly trac eable to it and would not be re dresse d by the re lief they

seek f rom it. MDA asser

ts that Pl ai n t i ffs’ f

eder al law

c ounts fa il t o s ta te a

c la im a g a ins t it

a nd tha t th e Court

is w ith ou t juri sd ic tio n o ve r P la int if fs ’ s ta te law c ounts a g a ins t it . Pl a int if fs dis pu te the De fe nd a nts a t a ll p oin ts. A. Counts Against USDA “The irreduc ible constitutional minimum of standing c ontains three r equire ments.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t , 523 U.S. 8 3 , 1 0 2 (1998) ( quotation marks and c itation omitted). “F irst and fore most, there must be alleg ed (and ultimately proved) an injury in fac t — a harm suff

ere d by the plaintiff tha t is concre te and a ctual or imminent, not conjec tural or hy pothetical.” Id. at 103 (quotation marks and citations omitted). “Second, there must be causation

— a fa irly trac eable connec tion between the plaintiff’s injury and the c omplained-of c onduct of the defe ndant.” Id. “ An d th ir d, the re mus t be re dr e ssa bil ity — a lik e lih oo d th a t the re qu e ste d r e lie f w ill redr ess the alleg ed injury .” Id. “This t riad of injury in fac t, causation, and re dressa bility constitutes the cor e of Article I I I ’s case-or -controve rsy require ment, and the pa rty invoking f

eder al jurisdiction bear s the burde n of establishing its ex istence.” Id. a t 10 3- 04 ; se e als o A m. Lib ra ry As s’ n v . FCC , 401 F.3d 489, 493 ( D.C. Cir. 2005) (same)

.

“The [S upreme ] C ourt also has made clea r that an injury

will not be ‘fair ly

trac eable ’ to the defendant’s challeng ed conduct nor ‘redre ssable’ where the i njury depends not only on that conduct, but on i ndepende nt intervening or additional ca usal fac tors.” Fulani v. Brady , 935 F.2d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “[T]o establish redressa bility at t he pleading stag e, . . .the fa cts alleg ed [m ust] be suff

icient to demonstrate a

substantial likelihood that the third party direc tly injuring the plaintiff would ce ase doing so as a result of the relief t he plaintiff soug ht.” Renal Physic ians Ass’n-13-

v. HHS, 489 F.3d 1267, 1275 ( D.C. Cir. 2007).

Pla int if fs ’ cou nt s a g a ins t U SDAfa il und e r b oth the c a us a tio n a nd re dr e ssa bil ity prong s of Article I I I ’s ca se-or -controve rsy requir ement. Ea ch of Plaintiffs’ six counts ag ainst USDA h i n g e s o nt h e e r

r o n e o u s a s s e rt i o n t h a t N A IS r e qu i r e s t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n o f P IN s a n d t h e u s e o f

R F ID tag s. Under the NAI S, “[i ]ndi vidual states may choose to ke ep pre mises reg istration voluntary or not, based o n l o ca l n eeds.” USDA’s Sur-Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dis miss, Ex . B ( USDA’s P r e m i s e s R e g i s t r a t i o n B r o c h u r e )

. F u rt h e r , N A I S r e g u l a t i o n s r e qu i r e o n l y “ [a ] m e a n s o f

o f f i c ia lly identify ing a

n animal or g roup of a

nimals using device s or methods appr oved by the Administrator, i n c l u d i n g , b u tn o tl i m i t e d t o , o f f i c i a l t a g s , t a t t o o s , a n d r e g i s t e r e d b r a n d s w h e n a c c o mp a n i e d b y a

cer tificate of inspection from a r ecog nized brand inspection author ity .” 9 C.F.R. § 71.1 (de finition of “ Of fi c ia l id e nti fi c a tio n d e vic e or me tho d” ). Th e re g ulatio ns “ a llo w f or the us e of

bo th c ur re ntl y available and eme rg ing a

nimal ide ntification technolog ies.” 69 Fe d. Reg

. 64,644, 64,645 (Nov. 8, 2004). The N AI S is “a sy stem that is technolog y neutra l, so that all exis ting e ffe ctive tec hnologie s and new technolog ies that may

be deve loped in the future may be utiliz ed.” Id. at 64,644. Plaintiffs’ alleg ed injuries ar e tra cea ble to MDA’s bovine tube rculosis era dication order s issued pursuant to Section 9(8) of Michig an’s Animal Indus t ry Act, Mich. Comp. L aws § 2 87 .7 09 (8 ). I t w a s MD A, a c tin g un de r s ta te law pr ior to USD A’ s imp le me ntatio n of the NA I S, who in 2002 order ed that “[a]ll herds in the Disease Fr ee Z one must obtain a premises identification number issued by the department befor e any movement of livestock f rom such her ds may

occur ” and that “[a]ll cattle ( bovine) be ing te sted as par t of a whole herd test to satisfy surveillance herd te sting

r e q u i re m en t s s h al l b e i d en t i fi edwi t h R ad i o Fr eq u en cy I d en t i fi ca t i o n (R FI D) ‘e l ec t ro n i c’ ea r t ags except under spe cial cir cumstance s approve d by the direc tor.” MDA’ s Mot. to Dism iss or forI na smu c h a s Se c tio n 1 1b of Mic hig a n’ s A nim a l Ind us tr y Ac t, M ic h Co mp. L a ws § 9 287.711b(1), wa s enac ted in 2000, see Public Act 323 of 2000, re quiring “off icial identification” of cattle be fore they

leave a pre mises, prece ding the 2002 M OU, cle arly it was Michig an law a

nd not the ag ree ment betwee n MDA and U SDA that mandated c attle identification. For these same rea sons, the C ourt reje cts Plaintiffs’ asser tion that USDA is “using f eder al 10 funds to coer ce MD A to implement NAI S in the St ate of Michig an.” T hat in 2006 MDA applied for f eder al funds to promote NA I S reflec ts MDA’s prior i n d ep en d ent decision that it “believe s [ N A IS ] t o b e a n e f

f e c t i v e t o o l f

o r a n i m a l d i s e a s e c o n t r o l a

n d e r a d i c a t i o n . ” K i r

k A f f

. ¶ 1 4

. S i m i l a r l y, USD A’ s is su a nc e of

Ve te ri na ry S ervi ces Memor a nd a

in 2 00 8 d oe s n ot o pe ra

te re tr oa c tiv e ly

to establish causation for the MDA’ s order s requiringPI Ns and RFI D ea

r tag s. -14- Summ. J

. , Ap p . at 12-13 (MDA Orde r Eff ective O ctober

1, 2002). I t was MDA who in 2004

or de re d, a s p a rt

of its tub e rc ul os is er a dic a tio n p ro g ra m, t hat “ [a]ll c a ttl e mus t be ide nti fi e d w ith RFI D Elec tronic iden t i fi cation ea rtag s prior to movement fr om a pre mises within the Modified Acc redited Z one.” Id. at 14 (MDA O rder Effe ctive J une 1, 2004). And it wa s MDA who in 2007

or de re d, a s p a rt

of its tub e rc ulo sis e ra dic a tio n p ro g ra m, t hat “ a ll c a ttl e mus t be id e nti fi e d w ith officia l RFI D electronic identifica tion earta g s prior to movement fr om a pre mises within Mi chig an, unless exempted by

the direc tor.” Id. at 17 (MDA O rder Effe ctive Mar ch 1, 2007). Plaintiffs attribute MDA’s a ctions to require ments imposed on it throug h the var ious MOUs ag ree d to by

MDA and U SDA. But these arguments fail in light of the uncontested f act that th e M D A o r d e r s r e qu ir in g PI N s a n d RF I D ta g s p r e c e d e d th e M O U s . I n o th e r w ords, the MOUs ref lected Mic higa

n law, adopte d by

Michig an indepe ndently , and not the dictates of USDA. I t may 9 be that the mandates wer e im portant t o obtaining USDA’s agr eeme nt that Michig an was elig ible for split-state TB status, but the mandates wer e adopte d in Michig an, byMic hig a n f ir st. 10 I n any event, de spite Plainti ffs’ repe ated statements to the contrar y , NAI S is neither

“ f e d e r a l la w ” n o r “ f e d e r a l r e g u lati o n . ” I t is a n id e n ti f ic a ti o n a n d tr a c k in g p r o g r a m d e v e loped by USD A a nd a do pte d b y

state a g ri c ult

ur e de pa rtme nts on

a vo lun tary

ba sis . Wh ile that vo lun tari ne ssNE PA c la ims mus t be br ou g ht u nd e r t he jud ic ia l r e vie w p ro vis ion of the APA , 5 U. S.C. 11 § 702. Se e, e .g ., Tular e Cou nty v . B us h , 306 F.3d 1138, 1143 ( D.C. Cir. 2002).

-15- ma y be inf l u e n c e d b y s u c h d e s i r e s a s qu a l i f y i n g f o r s p l i t

- s t a t e s t a tu s , t h a t g o a l d o e s n o t r o b sta te

o f f i c i a l s o f d e c i s i o n a

u t h o r i t y. Thus, the Court finds th at t h e dec isions to require re g istration of PI Ns and use of RFI D tag s were the i ndepende nt decisions of MDA made under state law, and Plaintiffs c annot trac e their alleg ed injuries to USDA simply beca use the NA I S allows states t o make those decisions. See, e.g., Fulani , 9 35 F .2 d at 13 29 . F ur the r, be c a

us e the so ur c e of

Pla int if fs ’ a lle g e d in

jur ie s is independe nt M DA o rd ers, enjoining the implementation and e nforc ement of the NAI S would not provide Plaintiffs with redr ess. See R enal Physicians Ass’n , 4 89 F .3 d at 1275. P lai nt if fs ’ c ounts ag ainst USDA will theref ore be dismiss ed for

lack of subject matter jur isdiction. B. Coun ts Against MDA Plaintiffs alleg e that MDA’s order s violate two fede ral statutes: the RFRA and the NEPA. Howeve r, neither statute applies to state a ctors implementing state law. See Olsen v. 11 Mukase y , 5 41 F .3 d 8 27 , 8 30 (8 th C ir . 2 00 8) (a ff ir min g dis mis sa l of

RF RA c la im a g a ins t st a te of fi c ia ls be c a

us e state law is “ no t su

bje c t to RF RA ” ); Karst Envtl. Educ. &Prot., Inc. v . EPA , 475 F .3 d 1 29 1, 12 98 (D .C. Cir . 200 7) (a ff ir min g dis mis sa l of N EPAc la im b e c a us e “ no thi ngin t

he APA authorizes claims ag ainst nonfede ral e nti ties”). As the Court alrea dy has found, the c ause of Plaintiffs’ alleg ed injuries wa s independe nt order s issued by MDA pursua

nt to Section 9(8) of Mic hig an’ s A nim a l I nd

us tr y Ac t, Mic h. Com

p. L a ws § 28 7. 70 9( 8)

. Ac c or din g ly , Pl a int if fs ’ RF RA and NEPA c ounts will be dismi ssed.

Pla int if fs a lso a lle g e that MD A’ s o rd e rs vio la te the Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e of the U. S.No ne of the do c ume nts or

a c tio ns c ite d b y th e P lain tif fs c on sti tut e s o r d e mon str a te s a 12 waiver of Michig an’s c onst i t u t i o nal rig hts under the Ele venth Amendment. None of them eve n sp e a ks to t

he iss ue. P lai nt if

fs ’ a sse rt ion

to t he c on tr a ry

is n ot a “ fa c t” to w hic h th e Court g ive s a broad r eadingbut is a leg al statement that is in err or. -16- Constit ution. However , the basis for the count is that MDA f ai l ed t o comply

with Michiga

n law. See F AC ¶¶ 28 2- 87

. “ [T]he El e ve nth Am e ndme nt d e nie s f e de ra l c ourt s juri sd ic tio n to or de r s ta te officia ls to confor

m their conduc t to state law.” LaS ha wn A . v . B arry , 144 F.3d 847, 852 ( D.C. Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g Pennhurst State School & & Hosp. v. Halde rman , 465 U.S. 89, 117-21 (1984))

.

Pla int if fs c a nn ot a

vo id t he El e ve nth Am end me nt b y dr e ssi ngthe ir

argume nt i n constitutional langua g e. Se e Mc Ne ilu s Truc k & Mf

g. , Inc . v. Oh io e

xre l. M on tgo me ry , 226 F.3d 429, 43 9 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 0) (“ Mc Ne ilu s a sse rt s th a t it vio la te s th e F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt f

or a state no t to fo llo w i ts o wn

ru le makin g pr oc e dure s. Ho we ve r, wh e the r state of fi c e rs have vio la te d state law i n failing to follow administrative proce dures is a state law question in the first instance, and this court still lacks supplementa l j u ri sdiction to consider the c laim.”). That is precisely what they

have

a tte mpted to do . Pl a int if fs ’ “ c on sti tut ion a l” c la im w ill be dis mis se d a s b a rr e d b y the El e ve nth Am e ndme nt. 12 Finally , Plaintiffs assert that the Court has suppleme ntal jurisdiction over the

re ma ini ngthr e e state law c ounts . “ A f e de ra l c ourt ha s jur isd ic tio n ov e r su bs tanti a l fe de ra l c la ims , toge ther with loca l law claims that ar e par t o f a co m m o n nucleus of ope rative f act.” Dec atur Liq uo rs, In c . v . D ist

ric t of Col um bia , 478 F.3d 360, 362 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “B ut a fe dera l court lac ks jurisdiction altoge ther if the f eder al claims ar e insubstantial.” Id. “A necessa ry condition for the exercise of

supplemental jurisdiction is the substantiality of the fe dera l claims.” Id. at 363. “I f the fe de ra l c la ims a re ob vio us ly fr ivo lou s o r s o att e nu a te d an d uns ub sta nti a l as to be a

bs olute ly de vo id-17-

of merit, a f

eder al court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims and, c onsequently , any local law c laims.” Id.

Suc h is the c a se he re . A s a lr e a dy dis c us se d, Pla int if

fs’ RF RA a nd

NE PA c ounts aga i n s t M DA fail bec ause ne ither statute applies to the MDA ’s orde rs that ar e the sourc e of Plaintif fs’ alleg ed injuries, and Plaintiffs’ “ constitutional” count ag ainst MDA is barr ed by the Eleventh Ame ndment. Be cause Plaintiffs’ fede ral c ounts ag ainst MDA ar e insubstantial, the Court is without suppl emental jurisdiction over the re maining state law c ounts. See id. at 364. IV . C ON CL USI ON L ivi ng a pa stor al l if

e in th e 21 st cent ury

is cle arl y a st ruggle an d P lai nt if

fs’ com pl aints

a b o u tf o r c e d e l e c t r o n i c t a g g i n g a n d

f o r c e d i n c l u s i o n i n

a n a t i o n a l d a t a

b a s e ar e u n d e r s t a n d a

b l e . T h e y, ho we ve r, c omp le te ly fa il to a dd re ss Mic hig a n state law, wh ic h a uth or ize s th e Di re c tor

of MD A t o

a do pt p ro g ra

ms s uc h a s N AI S- c omp lia nc e fo r c a ttl e , a

nd Pla int if fs ’ r e lia nc e on fe de ra l la

w i s misplaced. F or the for eg oing r easons, the Court will gra nt USDA’s mot ion to dismiss [Dkt. # 29] under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12( b)(1) and will g rant MDA’ s motion for summary judgme nt [Dkt. # 31] under F eder al Rule of Civil Procedur e 56. F urther, the Court will gra nt USDA’s motion to d ism iss Pla int if

f G re g Ni e we nd or

p’ s Cl a ims a s mo ot [D kt. # 5 0]. A ll o the r p e nd ingmot ion s w ill be denie d as moot. A memorializing Or der a ccompa nies this Memorandum Opinion.

D A T E : Ju l y

2 3 , 2 0 0 9 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e