## Facts

- Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in 1985 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue “minimum requirements” for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.
- USDA issued primate regulations in 1991 after notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- The regulations required regulated facilities to develop, document, and follow an “environment enhancement plan” intended to promote primate psychological well-being.
- The regulatory scheme mixed specific requirements with performance-based standards, leaving facility-specific judgments largely to the attending veterinarian.
- The plan had to be approved by the attending veterinarian and be available for USDA inspection and, for research facilities, for review by funding agencies upon request.
- Plaintiff Marc Jurnove, a frequent observer of primates at animal facilities, alleged aesthetic and emotional injury from viewing primates kept in allegedly inadequate conditions and challenged the regulations as insufficiently protective.
- The district court held the regulations failed to set the required minimum standards and ordered USDA to issue new regulations.

## Issues

1. Whether USDA’s 1991 primate regulations satisfy the AWA requirement to establish “minimum requirements” for an environment adequate to promote primate psychological well-being.
2. Whether the regulations are arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including in their approach to social grouping and enrichment measures.
3. Whether reliance on attending veterinarians to tailor enrichment plans constitutes an unlawful delegation or otherwise renders the regulations invalid.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court and upheld the 1991 regulations.
- The court held the regulations satisfied the AWA’s “minimum requirements” mandate despite using flexible performance standards.
- The court held the regulations were not arbitrary or capricious because USDA considered relevant evidence and explained its choices.
- The court rejected the argument that the rules unlawfully delegated standard-setting to attending veterinarians, emphasizing that USDA issued binding requirements subject to inspection and enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute requires “minimum requirements” while also calling for adequacy across varied conditions, an agency may reasonably implement the mandate through a combination of specific rules and performance standards.
- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, courts ask whether the agency considered the important aspects of the problem, relied on relevant data, and provided a rational explanation for its regulatory choices, particularly where scientific and technical judgments are involved.
- An agency does not unlawfully abdicate its responsibility by requiring regulated entities to create facility-specific plans approved by qualified professionals, so long as the agency sets enforceable obligations and retains oversight and enforcement authority.
- Regulations may treat social grouping as a general norm while permitting exceptions based on safety, health, or practicability, if the agency reasonably explains that approach in the administrative record.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that USDA’s primate psychological well-being regulations reasonably implemented the AWA’s minimum-requirements directive and survived APA review because USDA explained its use of flexible performance standards, addressed social-grouping concerns, and retained enforceable oversight rather than improperly delegating its regulatory duty.


Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 204 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2000)