Food & Water Watch, Inc v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

1. FSIS, PPIA, and NPIS. As the opinion discusses in some detail, FSIS administers the PPIA. Historically, FSIS inspected poultry using four systems. Offline inspectors ensure compliance with food safety regulations, verify sanitation procedures, and collect samples for testing. Online inspectors inspect the actual poultry. At issue in the case was the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS), which shifted from inspector-based sorting and evaluation to establishment-based sorting and evaluation. That is, NPIS relocates inspection responsibilities to firms rather than government personnel. 2. Food Safety Harms. The plaintiffs in Food & Water Watch alleged that the new inspection procedures would increase the risk of food borne illness and therefore sought to stop the program. To satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing in Article III, plaintiffs must show injury-in-fact. Directly regulated parties typically have no trouble satisfying this requirement because a given federal regulation requires them to take an action or suffer penalties. Poultry facilities would have no difficulty demonstrating standing. For third parties--individuals not directly regulated by the Rule, showing that they are or are likely to be harmed by the rule is far more difficult. Note that in practice this may mean rules deemed undesirable by regulated parties will be litigated, but rules deemed desirable by regulated parties are less likely to be litigated.