## Facts

- Animal welfare organizations (ALDF and HSUS) and two individuals sued the Secretary of Agriculture under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The suit challenged a USDA regulation defining “animal” under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to exclude birds, rats, and mice, among other categories.
- Plaintiffs also challenged the Secretary’s denial of a petition for rulemaking that sought to revise the definition to include those animals.
- Patricia Knowles alleged she previously conducted research on rats and mice, intended to return to such work, and claimed the exclusion would permit inhumane treatment that could undermine research quality.
- William Strauss alleged professional impairment because the exclusion prevented him from ensuring facilities maintained standards for birds, aquatic animals, rats, and mice comparable to those required for covered species.
- ALDF and HSUS alleged the exclusion and refusal to amend the definition frustrated their missions and programs aimed at humane treatment and impeded their efforts to monitor compliance and obtain information.
- The district court held plaintiffs had standing, found the claims reviewable under APA § 706(2)(A), and granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on the merits, concluding the exclusion violated the AWA.
- The Secretary appealed; the court of appeals considered standing as a jurisdictional prerequisite even though it was not pressed on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether any plaintiff showed Article III standing (injury in fact, traceability, and redressability) to challenge the regulation and denial of rulemaking.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ interests were arguably within the AWA’s “zone of interests” for purposes of obtaining judicial review under the APA.

## Decision

- The court of appeals vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held that none of the plaintiffs established Article III standing.
- The court further held that, even assuming constitutional standing, plaintiffs failed the APA “zone of interests” test because their asserted interests were not those the AWA protects or regulates.
- Because jurisdiction was absent, the court did not reach the merits of whether excluding birds, rats, and mice is consistent with the AWA.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing is jurisdictional, cannot be waived, and must be satisfied before a court may address the merits.
- Injury in fact must be concrete and particularized, not speculative or contingent on future events.
- Generalized policy objections or programmatic frustration, without a concrete personal or organizational injury, are insufficient for Article III standing.
- Under the APA, a plaintiff must also show statutory standing by asserting interests arguably within the statute’s zone of interests.
- Advocacy and informational interests asserted by third parties may fall outside a statute’s zone of interests where the statute’s provisions do not protect or regulate those interests in the relevant manner.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit ordered dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to establish both constitutional standing and statutory standing under the APA, preventing judicial review of the USDA’s exclusion of birds, rats, and mice from the regulatory definition of “animal” under the AWA.


Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Espy, 23 F.3d 496 (D.C. Cir. 1994)