## Facts

- USDA, through APHIS, regulated cattle and beef imports to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) transmission.
- After BSE was detected in Canada, USDA imposed broad restrictions on Canadian cattle and beef imports.
- USDA later issued a 2005 “minimal-risk” final rule reclassifying Canada as minimal-risk and permitting limited imports subject to conditions, including age limits for live cattle and required removal of specified risk materials.
- Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF) sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the rule was arbitrary and capricious and increased the risk of BSE entering the United States.
- The District of Montana granted a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the rule based on a finding that R-CALF was likely to succeed on the merits and that equities favored interim relief.
- USDA appealed the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding R-CALF likely to succeed on its APA claim that USDA’s rule was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief against implementation of the rule.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction and vacated the injunction.
- The court held that the district court applied the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard too intrusively by reweighing scientific and technical judgments committed to USDA.
- The court concluded the administrative record showed USDA examined relevant data and explained why multiple safeguards would keep BSE risk very low.
- The court found R-CALF’s asserted economic and health-related harms did not justify injunctive relief given the weak showing on the merits and the countervailing trade and industry harms.
- The court determined the public interest favored allowing the expert agency’s regulation to take effect absent a stronger showing of illegality.

## Legal Principles

- Preliminary injunctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and factual findings for clear error.
- Under the APA, courts uphold agency action if the agency examined relevant data and provided a reasoned explanation with a rational connection between facts found and choices made; courts may not substitute their judgment for the agency’s on technical matters.
- Disagreement with an agency’s evaluation of scientific uncertainty generally does not establish that a rule is arbitrary and capricious where the agency addressed the evidence and explained its conclusions in the record.
- A weak showing of likely success on the merits is ordinarily fatal to preliminary injunctive relief, particularly where irreparable harm is speculative and the balance of hardships and public interest weigh against an injunction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction against USDA’s Canada minimal-risk import rule, holding that the district court improperly second-guessed USDA’s scientific risk assessment under deferential APA review and that the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief were not met.


Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 415 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005)