Department of Agriculture Headquarter, in Washington, D.C.

Animal-rights groups' lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture will continue after a federal judge in Rochester, New York, rejected the Trump administration's argument for throwing out the litigation.

The lawsuit is over whether the USDA has to proactively post certain documents online about the humane treatment of farm animals or if those files should only be available on request.

It was brought last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York by the Animal Welfare Institute and Farm Sanctuary, which has a farm in Watkins Glen, New York. They're represented by William N. Lawton, an associate with Eubanks & Associates in Washington, D.C.

“We're very pleased with the ruling,” Lawton said. “We believe the judge was right on basically every issue. He ruled in our favor essentially on every issue.”

They'll now move forward with their claims against the USDA, which they've said is violating a section of federal law that deals with public information. The groups argued in their lawsuit last year that the agency is required to post documents online in public view if they're already frequently requested.

That's called the “reading room” provision of the Freedom of Information Act, which requires a federal agency to make records available for public inspection when they're either requested three or more times, or expected to be sought after frequently due to their subject matter.

The USDA had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the groups hadn't identified when the specific records they were seeking had been previously requested, and by whom.

U.S. District Judge Michael Telesca of the Western District wrote in the decision Monday that he didn't interpret the law to mean that the records had to be the subject of several identical inquiries, only that they be included in the broad scope of other requests.

“The Court declines to read such a specificity into Section 552(a)(2)(D),” Telesca wrote. “That provision does not require that the requests, or the presumed productions as a whole, be identical, but rather that certain records were covered by at least three requests.”

The documents at issue relate to complaints and interviews about the humane treatment of animals on farms before slaughter and sanitary practices at poultry facilities. Those records are compiled in response to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, both of which became law in the late 1950s.

The first requires that animals be humanely handled and slaughtered in USDA-inspected plants. The second requires that poultry processing facilities be kept sanitary and mandates regular inspections by the federal government.

Both laws are administered and overseen by the Food Safety Inspection Service, which is part of the USDA.

In May of last year, the Animal Welfare Institute and Farm Sanctuary sent a FOIA request to the USDA and FSIS asking for records related to the implementation of the two laws. They also asked that, pursuant to federal law, the agency proactively make those documents publicly available online in the future since they've previously been the subject of other requests.

They were specifically seeking to make Noncompliance Records and Memoranda of Interview available to the public. The first are detailed reports that show when a facility has not complied with the HMSA and PPIA, the two agriculture laws. The second is a written summary of an interview between an inspector with the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a facility.

The USDA and FSIS responded with the documents they had asked for but didn't acknowledge the second part of the request about proactive disclosure. While an appeal of that decision was pending, the groups decided to file the lawsuit in federal court.

The Trump administration has remained opposed to proactively disclosing those records online, arguing in its motion to dismiss the litigation that the groups hadn't shown that the specific documents they sought were the explicit subject of frequent requests by others.

The USDA has also argued that the federal court doesn't have jurisdiction to compel the agency to proactively post documents online. Instead, they claimed, the court can only enjoin the agency from withholding records from a complainant.

Telesca said in the decision Monday that a plain reading of the statute appeared to show the “reading room” provision was covered by the law, meaning that he would have the authority to say the federal government was out of compliance and, therefore, order it to post the documents online for public view.

“Despite out-of-circuit case law holding to the contrary, a plain reading of this section seems to suggest that a district court has both the authority to enjoin the agency from withholding records (i.e., injunctive relief), and to order the production of any agency records withheld from a particular plaintiff, which would appear to cover the reading room provision,” Telesca wrote.

Lawton said that, after the decision Monday, he remained confident their arguments would prevail as the litigation moves forward.

“We are hopeful and optimistic that we can soon proceed on the merits and get this case resolved and get these important records posted online pursuant to FOIA's affirmative disclosure mandate,” Lawton said.

A spokeswoman for the USDA said the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation and declined to share any other information pertaining to the lawsuit.

READ MORE:

Animal-Rights Groups Sue USDA for Documents on Farms' Compliance With Federal Laws

NY Law Allowing Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants Sees Federal Court Challenge

Senate Panel Clears 7 Nominees for Federal Judge Positions in New York