Levine v. Vilsack
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
587 F.3d 986 (2009)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
In 1958, the United States Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which mandated that the slaughtering of livestock must be carried out by humane methods. In 1978, the act was amended to repeal the enforcement provision allowing the government to enforce humane slaughtering of livestock. In 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture (the USDA) (defendant) issued a notice that addressed the act and stated that the slaughter of poultry was not encompassed by the slaughter of livestock. Thus, the USDA’s position was that there was not a specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry. Ellen Levine, on behalf of an animal rights organization, filed suit in federal court challenging the USDA’s position on whether poultry should be included in the term livestock, and thus given certain humane slaughtering protections. In response, the USDA filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing. The district court denied the motion, finding that the injuries alleged by Levine were redressable, and thus standing existed. The USDA appealed. On appeal, Levine argued that the redressability requirement was satisfied because if she prevailed, then the amount of poultry inhumanely slaughtered would be reduced.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wu, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.