People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. USDA

PETA's APA claim hinges on whether USDA failed to perform a nondiscretionary statutory duty (such as mandatory inspection of regulated facilities under the Animal Welfare Act) or merely made discretionary enforcement choices. If the statute imposes a clear affirmative obligation (e.g., annual inspections of research institutions using certain animals), and USDA categorically withheld that action without explanation, the agency inaction would be arbitrary and capricious under APA Section 706(1). Conversely, if the statute grants USDA enforcement discretion, the agency's allocation of inspection resources receives judicial deference unless wholly irrational or pretextual. The case outcome depends on the statutory language governing the specific facilities PETA targets and whether USDA's inaction violates a mandatory duty or exercises permissible discretion.