Rise for Animals v. Washington:
Fourth Circuit Re-calibrates Informational Standing—
“A Plausible Statutory Entitlement to the Specific Information Sought” as an Article III Gatekeeper

1. Introduction

In Rise for Animals v. Washington, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit confronted animal-advocacy groups’ attempt to invalidate the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) Focused Inspection Policy—a practice that substitutes abbreviated, rotating inspections at AAALAC-accredited research facilities for the traditional full-scope, annual inspections mandated by the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”).

Plaintiffs Rise for Animals and Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”) asserted that the policy both contravenes the AWA and deprives them of statutorily guaranteed information about every instance of non-compliance discovered during inspections. They framed their injury as an informational injury under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), claiming that the AWA’s public-database provision entitles them to comprehensive inspection reports that would exist but for the challenged policy.

The district court dismissed for lack of standing, and the Fourth Circuit—after thorough examination of precedent from multiple circuits—affirmed. The panel held that claiming informational standing requires plaintiffs to put forward a plausible statutory interpretation that confers a legal right to the specific data withheld. Because the AWA’s database section regulates disclosure of whatever inspection reports exist, but is silent on the content of those reports, the plaintiffs could not cross the Article III threshold.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: Plaintiffs lack Article III standing; dismissal affirmed.
• Key Point of Law: To establish informational standing, a plaintiff’s reading of the statute must be plausible and must show a legal entitlement to the specific information alleged to be missing. The mere existence of a public-disclosure mandate does not imply a right to additional or more detailed data.
• Outcome: Because the AWA’s “Database Provision” (7 U.S.C. § 2146a) requires publication of final inspection reports but does not prescribe their level of detail, plaintiffs are receiving everything the statute promises; thus, no informational injury exists and federal courts lack jurisdiction.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989 (D.C. Cir. 2016) – Key template for rejecting attempts to bootstrap substantive grievances into informational injuries when the invoked statutory provision does not itself create a disclosure obligation.
2. ASPCA v. Feld Entertainment, 659 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011) – Demonstrated that plaintiffs cannot conjure an informational right from a provision that concerns conduct (ESA “take” prohibition) rather than disclosure; Fourth Circuit adopted its logic to animal-welfare context.
3. Salt Institute v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2006) – Fourth Circuit precedent emphasizing that plaintiffs must show Congress has granted them “a legal right to the information in question.” Court relies heavily on this in framing “plausible statutory entitlement.”
4. Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) – Distinguished, not followed. Akins dealt with concreteness of injury once a statutory right to data was conceded. Here, the right itself is disputed.
5. Other supportive citations: Dreher v. Experian, 856 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2017) (informational injury elements); Laufer v. Naranda Hotels, 60 F.4th 156 (4th Cir. 2023); Humane Soc’y v. Vilsack, 797 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (plausibility standard); diverse D.C./7th/9th Cir. decisions rejecting over-broad informational-standing theories.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Standing Framework – The panel restated the tripartite test (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability) and highlighted that informational injury can satisfy these only when plaintiffs show (1) deprivation of statutorily required information and (2) harm of the sort Congress meant to prevent.
2. Plausibility Threshold – Citing Humane Soc’y and Warth, the court insisted that plaintiffs’ statutory interpretation must be at least “colorable.” Without that predicate, the case fails at the doorstep.
3. Content vs. Disclosure Distinction – The AWA’s Database Provision compels USDA to publish whatever final reports exist; it does not tell USDA what must be in them. Thus, missing details ≠ statutory violation.
4. Bootstrapping Rejected – Plaintiffs attempted to fuse the Inspection Provision (§ 2146(a))—which regulates agency conduct—with the Database Provision (§ 2146a)—which regulates public access. The court, echoing Feld, refused to let a non-disclosure provision do the work of a substantive-conduct challenge.
5. Akins Distinction – In Akins the right to information was conceded; the dispute was the breadth of “political committee.” Here, the right itself is disputed because the statute never promised the information plaintiffs want.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Narrowing the Informational-Standing Pathway – Advocacy groups must now articulate, at the pleading stage, a facially plausible statutory argument that the data they seek is expressly mandated. This will likely truncate many APA cases rooted in alleged “informational harms.”
• Agency Latitude on Inspection Methodology – Absent explicit statutory language governing inspection depth, agencies retain discretion to calibrate resource-saving approaches, so long as some form of report is produced and disclosed.
• Animal-Welfare Litigation Strategy – Plaintiffs challenging AWA enforcement will need to pivot from informational theories to direct APA “arbitrary-and-capricious” claims grounded in concrete plaintiff injuries (e.g., organizational diversion-of-resources or aesthetic harms).
• Cross-Pollination to FOIA/Environmental Contexts – The decision adds Fourth-Circuit weight to D.C.-Circuit doctrine, potentially influencing FOIA-adjacent and environmental suits where plaintiffs allege missing or inadequate disclosures.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Informational Standing

A doctrine allowing someone to sue when (a) a statute says they are entitled to certain information, (b) the info is withheld, and (c) that withholding causes a real harm (e.g., inability to monitor government). Without a clear statutory promise, there is no right—and no standing.

Plausible Statutory Entitlement

The court’s new phrase for the threshold inquiry: “Could a reasonable lawyer read the statute to guarantee this precise information?” If the answer is “no,” the case ends before merits.

Inspection vs. Disclosure Provisions

The AWA’s Inspection Provision (§ 2146(a)) obliges USDA to inspect facilities annually. The Database Provision (§ 2146a) obliges USDA to post whatever final reports result. One speaks to agency conduct; the other to public access. Conflating the two failed.

AAALAC Accreditation

A voluntary, industry-funded certification program for research labs. USDA’s Focused Inspection Policy piggybacks on AAALAC status to shorten inspections, which plaintiffs dislike but cannot challenge via an information-access theory.

Arbitrary and Capricious Review (APA)

Standard under which courts set aside agency action if it lacks reasoned explanation or contradicts statutory mandates. Here, the court never reached this merits question because standing was absent.

5. Conclusion

Rise for Animals v. Washington crystallizes a crucial limitation on informational standing: courts will not stretch statutory language to create a disclosure duty where none exists. Litigants must ground their claimed injury in a plausible, text-based entitlement to the specific data withheld. By affirming dismissal, the Fourth Circuit aligns with D.C., Seventh, and Ninth Circuit precedents, fortifying a cross-circuit consensus that bootstrapping substantive grievances onto disclosure provisions is impermissible. The judgment not only curtails certain animal-welfare suits but also sends a broader signal to public-interest litigators: start with the text—if it does not clearly promise the information, the courthouse doors may remain closed.