07/15/05 The outcome?

07/15/05 The outcome?

Coming out of Wednesday's appeal hearing in Seattle on lifting the temporary injunction banning Canadian live cattle and some beef products from coming into the U.S., there was speculation that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may take one of two directions. It could make a timely ruling on the matter, timely meaning within a day or two after the hearing. Or it could possibly wait on the outcome of July 27th's case in a U.S. District Court in Montana, in which plaintiff R-C.A.L.F. U.S.A. seeks to make the injunction and the ban permanent. So when R-C.A.L.F. C.E.O. Bill Bullard was asked which track he would prefer, he said a quick judgment upholding the temporary injunction would be best, as both this week's appeal and the upcoming case take on two different matters. BULLARD: Our entire focus during the trial and the merits beginning July 27th will be to further export the very issues that are the subjects of this appeal, as well as the other issues that R-C.A.L.F. raised in it's litigation, but weren't a part of the preliminary injunction request because that was narrowly focused on simply trying to stop the implementation of the rule because our position was the harm would begin immediately. One factor that could perhaps determine a quick ruling by the Ninth Circuit is that two parties want intervener status for the entire case. One party is the National Meat Association, representing our nation's packing industry. Their attorney Phillip Olsson contends that their interest in the case is economical in nature. OLSSON: The injunction has a benefit to R-C.A.L.F. members of a million dollars a day, and it has a cost to N.M.A. members of billions of dollars a day, and that is a very different interest. Then there is the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Canada's cattle industry is losing money as a result of the ban. But for C.C.A. attorney Simeon Kriesburg, intervener status is also about making sure the interest of his nation's cattle and beef industries are represented, something neither the N.M.A. or for that matter U.S.D.A. as defendant in the injunction suit, can adequately do. KRIESBURG: We still have a hearing on July 27th which we would very much like to participate in as a party. We have possible post hearing submissions and possible settlement discussions, possible appeals, possible enforcement of judgment, if the judgment is in our favor, all of these kinds of things we would not be able to do without being a party intervener; we can't do simply being an amicus.
Previous Report07/14/05 C.R.P.`s future shape?
Next Report07/18/05 Energy Bill timeline