Search
PRINTVideo
Links
American Agricultural Insurance Company American Farm Bureau Insurance Services American Farm Bureau Inc. Farm Bureau BankSpotlight
Closed Cases
AFBF v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 10 -00489
| Case Summary: | AFBF successfully challenged a Corps of Engineers’ policy that attempted to revoke a regulatory exemption for “prior converted cropland” under the Clean Water Act. Since 1993, prior converted croplands have been exempted from the definition of “waters of the U.S.” even if the land was no longer in agricultural use, so long as wetland characteristics did not return. The Corps attempted to remove the exemption through a Florida policy document. The court ruled in a related companion case that the Corps’ new policy was indeed a legislative rule issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court vacated the policy. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To stop the Corps of Engineers from issuing “back-door regulations” and to ensure that farmers retain the value and flexibility of their farmland. |
| AFBF Role: | PetitionerA party who presents a petition to a court or other official body. |
| Result: | The court vacated the policy, ordering the Crop to cease using the policy. |
| Select Filings: | 2011.02.08 Order Denying Corps Motion to Amend Judgment.pdf2010.11.04 AFBF Joint Motion to Intervene.PDF2010.09.28 Florida District Court Opinion.pdf2010.03.24.AFBF Complaint.pdf |
American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 10-174
| Case Summary: | AFBF filed two amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn an appellate court decision allowing several States to assert federal nuisance law claims concerning greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The Supreme Court agreed that no such claims can be asserted under federal nuisance law. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To ensure that any restrictions on the emissions of greenhouse gases are established by Congress and not by tort lawsuits. |
| AFBF Role: | |
| Result: | The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court for consideration of state law nuisance claims. |
| Select Filings: | 2011.06.20 Supreme Court Opinion.pdf2011.02.11AFBF Amicus.pdf |
American Farm Bureau Federation and Texas Farm Bureau et al. v. Veneman
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 03-1164
| Case Summary: | Pending the result of a D.C. District Court ruling, USDA planned to release personal and confidential information concerning the identity, location and other private information about participants of the USDA livestock protection collar program for the control of predators. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To protect private confidential information from public disclosure. |
| AFBF Role: | PetitionerA party who presents a petition to a court or other official body. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. The Fifth Circuit issued a narrow injunction only protecting data otherwise protected from public disclosure under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). |
| Select Filings: | Coalition Amicus Brief.pdf2004.10.28 Fifth Circuit Permanent Injunction.pdf2004.08.04 Fifth Circuit Opinion.pdf |
American Farm Bureau Federation v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case Nos. 07-60620; 07-60902
| Case Summary: | EPA extended the date by which newly defined CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) must seek National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage and develop and implement nutrient management plans. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To avoid unnecessary permitting for non-discharging CAFOs who would need to apply for federal permits by a date certain. |
| AFBF Role: | PetitionerA party who presents a petition to a court or other official body. |
| Result: | The case was deemed moot because of issues resolved in the 2008 CAFO rule. |
| Select Filings: | 2009.02.26 Court Order Dismissing Petition for Review as Moot.pdf2009.01.30 AFBF Opposition to EPA Motion to Dismiss.pdf2008.03.05 AFBF Brief.pdf |
American Farm Bureau Federation v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Case No. 06-1410
| Case Summary: | EPA issued a rule revising the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (PM NAAQS) on October 17, 2006. The rule adjusted the annual and daily air quality standards for fine and coarse Particulate Matter. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To prevent the burden of air quality restrictions in rural areas. |
| AFBF Role: | PetitionerA party who presents a petition to a court or other official body. |
| Result: | The Court upheld the NAAQS for coarse Particulate Matter and vacated the rule for fine Particulate Matter. |
| Select Filings: | 2009.02.24 D.C. Circuit Opinion.pdf2008.02.12 AFBF Joint Reply Brief Opposing NAAQS Standard.pdf2008.01.29 AFBF Joint Brief Opposing Environmental Petitioners Brief.pdf2008.01.07 EPA Brief.pdf2007.10.02 AFBF Joint Brief.pdf |
Defenders of Wildlife, et. al. v. United States Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service
United States District Court, Oregon, Case No. 03-1348
| Case Summary: | The Fish & Wildlife Service issued a final rule under the Endangered Species Act to “downlist” the endangered gray wolf to “threatened” and established wolf population recovery areas in the United States. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To allow the Fish & Wildlife Service to remove or “downlist” a species from the endangered species list when the species meets recovery goals. |
| AFBF Role: | IntervenorThe entry into a lawsuit by a third party who, despite not being named a party to the action, has a personal stake in the outcome. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. The court ruled that the Fish & Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act in issuing the rule. |
| Select Filings: | 2005.12.28 Order.pdf2005.01.31 Order and Opinion.pdf2004.02.12 Joint Stipulation of Parties.pdf |
Forest Guardians v. Kempthorne
United States District Court, Colorado, Case No. 07--00268
| Case Summary: | Plaintiffs filed a citizen-listing petition for the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog species in 1998. The species was re-evaluated annually, and in 2004, the Fish & Wildlife Service determined that prairie dogs were more numerous than believed and therefore did not warrant Endangered Species Act listing. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To prevent using a species’ entire historical range, rather than current range, as a basis for an Endangered Species Act listing decision. This would ensure limitations on agricultural lands for critical habitat. |
| AFBF Role: | IntervenorThe entry into a lawsuit by a third party who, despite not being named a party to the action, has a personal stake in the outcome. |
| Result: | Case dismissed without adjudication. |
| Select Filings: | 2007.10.09 Stipulation of Dismissal.pdf2007.06.12 AFBF Motion to Intervene Memorandum of Points & Authorities.pdf2007.06.12 AFBF Motion to Intervene.pdf |
Friends of the Earth v. South Florida Water Management District
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 02-80309
| Case Summary: | Plaintiffs allege three Lake Okeechobee back pumps require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act. The Southern District Court of Florida issued a ruling that the water transfers require NPDES permits because the pumped water adds pollutants to the receiving waters. During the course of litigation, EPA finalized its Water Transfer Rule. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To prevent additional unnecessary permitting requirements for agricultural producers. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | The Eleventh Circuit deferred to EPA and upheld the Water Transfer Rule such that the backpumps do not require NPDES permits. |
| Select Filings: | 2009.06.04 11th Circuit Decision.pdf2008.02.19 11th Circuit Order.pdf2007.12.21 AFBF Amicus Brief.pdf |
GDF Realty Investment Ltd. v. Norton
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 06-1345
| Case Summary: | The Fifth Circuit found a sufficient basis in the Commerce Clause for the Federal government to protect a cave bug, a purely intrastate species with no scientific, tourism or other commercial value. This decision upheld a decision by the Fish & Wildlife Service denying an Endangered Species Act “incidental take” permit to the landowner for planned development around the cave bug’s habitat. This rendered the property worthless for development. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To prevent the Federal government from listing a species as endangered if it lives in only one state of the United States. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | CertiorariLatin for “to be more fully informed”. An extraordinary write issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. denied. |
| Select Filings: | AFBF Amicus Brief (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf |
Geertson Seed Farms v. United States Department of Agriculture
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-16492
| Case Summary: | In May 2007, the Northern District of California overturned USDA’s deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa. The court issued an injunction against the planting of new Roundup Ready Alfalfa until USDA completes an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. Only seed planted before March 30, 2007 may be harvested and sold subject to certain conditions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the United States Supreme Court granted Monsanto's petition for certiorari. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To ensure that the agricultural community has access to biotechnology products and is able to rely on government regulatory decisions because of the investments that follow. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | On June 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the nationwide injunction against the planting and sale of RRA. The district court decision vacating the original deregulation was not appealed and therefore still stands. The Supreme Court held that the district court improperly disregarded and enjoined the interim measures proposed by USDA during the remedies phase of the litigation. The Supreme Court found that the interim measures were a separate regulatory action permissible under NEPA while USDA conducts its EIS review. The Supreme Court also reinforced the legal principle that nationwide injunctions are extraordinary remedies only to be granted if the parties satisfy a traditional four-part test. |
| Select Filings: | 2010.03.08 AFBF Joint Amicus Merits.pdf2009.12.23 Geertson-Seed-Farms Opp to Cert.pdf2009.12.23 Monsanto Reply to Opp.pdf2009.12.23 USDA Opp to Cert.pdf2009.11.23 Washington Legal Foundation Amicus in Support of Cert.pdf2009.11.23 AFBF Joint Amicus in Support of Cert.pdf2009.10.22 Monsanto Cert Petition.pdf2009.06.24 9th Cir. Opinion.pdf2008.01.10 AFBF Amicus CA9.pdf2008.01.10 AFBF Amicus 9th Cir..pdf2007.04.23 AFBF Motion to Leave N.D. Cal..pdf2007.04.23 AFBF Amicus NDCa.pdf |
Maughan v. Rosenkrance (aka Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 06-275
MiPro Homes v. Mt. Laurel Township
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 06-1345
| Case Summary: | MiPro purchased a parcel of land zoned for residential use with the intention of building single-family homes. Within a year, the Township added MiPro’s land to a list of prospective open space acquisitions in its Open Space Recreation Plan. The Township adopted an ordinance declaring the property to be under development pressure and authorized its acquisition through eminent domain. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To protect private land & property owners’ rights. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | CertiorariLatin for “to be more fully informed”. An extraordinary write issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. denied. |
| Select Filings: | AFBF Amicus Brief (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf |
National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife (aka United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Defenders of Wildlife Coalition)
United States Supreme Court, Case Nos. 06-340, 06-549
| Case Summary: | The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s delegation of Clean Water Act authority to Arizona based on EPA’s failure to sufficiently consider and compensate for the loss of Endangered Species Act consultation that would occur under a delegated state program. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To ensure that the Endangered Species Act does not trump or overrule the requirements of other laws, i.e. Clean Water Act, and impose additional burdens on agricultural producers. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. The Supreme Court ruled that EPA must award Arizona its delegation of Clean Water Act authority because the Endangered Species Act is not a super statute and cannot impose additional requirements upon non-discretionary federal actions. |
| Select Filings: | 2007.06.25 Opinion.pdfAFBF Amicus Brief II (U.S. Supreme Court).pdfAFBF Amicus (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf |
National Cotton Council v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 06-4630
National Pork Producers Council v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 08-61093
| Case Summary: | AFBF, along with the National Pork Producers Council, United Egg Producers, and other state and national poultry and pork groups, challenged EPA’s 2008 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) rule. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To ensure CAFOs not discharging under the Clean Water Act are not forced to obtain costly National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. |
| AFBF Role: | Petitioner/Intervenor |
| Result: | On March 15, 2011, the Fifth Circuit vacated key elements of the rule as beyond EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act. The court held that EPA cannot require non-discharging livestock producers to apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The court also ruled that CAFO operators cannot face separate Clean Water Act liability for “failure to apply” for permit coverage. Instead, where a CAFO does not have permit coverage, the Clean Water Act imposes liability only for discharges to waters from the unpermitted CAFO. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a separate challenge to several EPA letters indicating that stormwater carrying dust and feathers from the ground outside CAFO production areas to waters of the U.S. is a regulated discharge. Poultry petitioners had asked the court to review EPA’s interpretation on that issue and to rule that such runoff is exempt agricultural stormwater. |
| Select Filings: | 2011.03.15 Fifth Circuit Opinion.pdf2010.05.07 Final Joint AFBF brief.pdf2009.12.07 AFBF Opening Brief.pdf2009.07.24 AFBF Unopposed Supp Motion on Briefing Schedule.pdf2009.07.09 Order on Petition for Review.pdf2009.06.15 AFBF Unopposed Supp Motion on Briefing Schedule.pdf2009.05.18 AFBF Joint Motion on Briefing Schedule.pdf2009.04.01 NCC and USPOULTRY Petition for Review.pdf2008.12.10 AFBF Petition for Review.pdf |
National Wildlife Federation v. Schaefer
United States District Court, Western District Washington, Case No. 08-1004
| Case Summary: | Plaintiffs complained that the Farm Service Agency did not conduct a sufficient environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order against the Farm Service Agency’s Critical Feed Use (CFU) program to allow limited haying and grazing on Conservation Reserve Program land. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To educate the court on the harms to producers if the Critical Feed Use program were halted and ensure producer confidence in government programs. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. The court listened to farmer concerns and issued a modified injunction allowing farmers with amended CRP contracts to continue using the land. Those farmers who already submitted contracts would have them considered. Farmers who had not yet filed forms could do so if they spent a threshold amount of money or proved other reliance. |
| Select Filings: | 2008.07.22 Amicus Brief II.pdf2008.07.17 Order.pdf2008.07.15 AFBF Amicus Brief.pdf |
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1151
| Case Summary: | NRDC challenged EPA’s Clean Air Act (“CAA”) “Exceptional Events” regulation. The rule interprets a 2005 Amendment to the CAA allowing states not to count excessive levels of air quality emissions caused by a very narrow and defined set of “exceptional events.” |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To ensure that farms found in areas where dust storms are likely to move coarse particulate matter are not penalized with regulations because of natural events. |
| AFBF Role: | IntervenorThe entry into a lawsuit by a third party who, despite not being named a party to the action, has a personal stake in the outcome. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. The court upheld the EPA rule. |
| Select Filings: | 2009.03.20 Opinion.pdf2008.03.06 AFBF Motion to Intervene.pdf2007.05.21 NRDC Complaint.pdf |
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods
United States District Court, Northern District Oklahoma, Case No. 05-029
Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Lohn
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-35700
| Case Summary: | Plaintiffs argue that the government issued a flawed biological opinion regarding grazing impacts on endangered species. The holders of the grazing permit were denied intervention in the merits portion of the lawsuit. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To give landowners, whose land is habitat to threatened and endangered species, the right to challenge the listing of a species on their land. |
| AFBF Role: | |
| Result: | The court vacated the biological opinion thus mooting the issues in the underlying case. |
| Select Filings: | 2007.12.03 AFBF Amicus Brief.pdf2007.07.06 complaint.pdf |
Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act
| Case Summary: | While AFBF did not submit a brief in connection with the U.S. Supreme Court's review of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, the lawsuit was of great interest to Farm Bureau members. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
|
| AFBF Role: | |
| Result: | |
| Select Filings: | Health Care Opinion.pdfHHS Brief Severability.pdfHHS Reply Brief Severability.pdfState Govts Brief Severability.pdfState Govts Reply Brief Severability.pdfPrivate Parties Brief Individual Mandate.pdfHHS Brief Individual Mandate.pdfState Govts Brief Individual Mandate.pdfHHS Reply Brief Individual Mandate.pdf |
Peters v. Village of Clifton, Illinois
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 07-635
| Case Summary: | An Illinois farmer sued the Village of Clifton in federal court in order to obtain just compensation for the Village’s damage to his farm via placement of an underground sewer line. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To assist the farming community (i.e. landowners) in receiving just compensation from federal courts without having to spend resources suing in state court first. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | CertiorariLatin for “to be more fully informed”. An extraordinary write issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. denied. |
| Select Filings: | 2007.12.00 AFBF Amicus.pdf2007.11.00 Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus.pdf |
R-CALF v. United States Department of Agriculture
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 05-35264
| Case Summary: | R-CALF challenged USDA’s rule regarding BSE (mad cow disease) minimal-risk regions and permitting limited importation of Canadian cattle and obtained a preliminary injunction against implementation of the rule. USDA successfully appealed the injunction at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To support the use of science-based rulemaking in the interest of all farmers and producers in the United States. |
| AFBF Role: | |
| Result: | The court held that USDA did not abuse its discretion in issuing the rule and no injunction issued. Further litigation relating to the minimal risk rule continues. |
| Select Filings: | 2005.08.17 Amended Opinion (9th Cir.).pdf2005.07.25 Opinion (9th Cir.).pdf2005.04.21 AFBF Joint Amicus.pdf |
Rapanos v. United States and June Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Supreme Court, Nos. 04-1034 & 04-1384
| Case Summary: | The combined Carabell and Rapanos cases examined the boundaries of federal jurisdiction over “waters of the U.S” on private land. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To prevent the federal government from designating farmland as "waters of the U.S." and subsequent regulatory restrictions. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. In a split decision of the United States Supreme Court, the ruling outlined factors for defining a water of the U.S., such as relatively permanent flow. One justice issued a separate opinion to send the cases back to the Circuit Courts, but reasoned that the land in question must have a “significant nexus” to traditionally navigable water. This split decision has caused confusion over what is the rule of law derived from this case. |
| Select Filings: | 2006.06.29 Opinion.pdf2005.12.00 AFBF Amicus.pdf |
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Division
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Nos. 04-17554, 05-15051
| Case Summary: | Cargill appealed a lower court order finding that its industrial pond used for waste/fill disposal in its solar salt making operations was a “water of the U.S.” The pond was adjacent to a slough, but water flowed away from and not to the slough. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To clarify the definition of “waters of the U.S.”. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. The court found that the pond was not a water of the U.S. and refused to expand the term “adjacent.” |
| Select Filings: | 2007.03.08 Opinion (9th Cir.).pdf2006.08.01 AFBF Supplemental Letter Amicus.pdf2005.04.19 AFBF Amicus Brief.pdf2003.04.30 Order (N.D. Cal.).pdf |
Simsbury Avon Preservation Society v. Metacon Gun Club
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 07-0795
| Case Summary: | Homeowners living adjacent to and near a gun club alleged that the outdoor shooting activities resulted in a discharge of a pollutant to a water of the U.S. in violation of section 402 of the Clean Water Act. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To interpret & clarify the important Supreme Court Rapanos decision on what land is considered a “water of the U.S.” |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | |
| Select Filings: | 2009.07.31 Opinion (2nd Cir.).pdf2007.08.08 AFBF Amicus.pdf2007.08.08 Amicus.pdf |
Summers v. Earth Island Institute
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 07-643
| Case Summary: | The dispute in this case focused on whether the Institute had standing to challenge the Forest Service’s 2003 regulation that excluded certain timber sales from review under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To ensure that parties filing lawsuits challenging federal regulations have a constitutional basis to do so. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | Opinion issued. The Supreme Court ruled that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they demonstrated no cognizable injury. |
| Select Filings: | 2009.03.03 Opinion (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf2008.04.00 AFBF Amicus.pdf |
United States v. McWane
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 08-223
| Case Summary: | The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Clean Water Act criminal conviction because the jury was not instructed on the Supreme Court’s “significant nexus” test often applied in determining whether land is a “waters of the U.S.” The government seeks review to establish a broader test. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To clarify the definition of a “water of the U.S.” and what farmland falls under federal jurisdiction. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | CertiorariLatin for “to be more fully informed”. An extraordinary write issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. denied. |
| Select Filings: | 2008.09.22 AFBF Amicus.pdf |
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 03-4470
| Case Summary: | In 2003, AFBF and others alleged that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act ("CWA") by issuing a final Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) rule. AFBF intervened in the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To ensure that non-discharging CAFOs are not required to obtain CWA permits and to prevent unjustified costs and liability to livestock producers. |
| AFBF Role: | IntervenorThe entry into a lawsuit by a third party who, despite not being named a party to the action, has a personal stake in the outcome. |
| Result: | Opinion Issued. The Second Circuit ruled that livestock producers will be required to apply for a Clean Water Act discharge permit based only upon actual, not potential, discharges into waters of the United States. In 2008, EPA issued a revised CAFO rule which is currently being litigated (see active cases above). |
| Select Filings: | 2005.02.28 Opinion (2d Cir.).pdfAFBF Reply Brief.pdf2003.10.31 AFBF Brief.pdf |
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council
United States Supreme Court, Case No. 07-1239
| Case Summary: | The Supreme Court is considering two issues: (1) whether a preliminary injunction enjoining the Navy from the use of sonar was appropriate; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit used an overly permissive test for issuing an injunction. |
| Importance to Agricultural Community: |
To raise the injunction standard in the Ninth Circuit so that injunctions are only used as extraordinary remedy. |
| AFBF Role: | AmicusAmicus is Latin for “friend of the court”, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit and petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. |
| Result: | The Supreme Court upheld the Navy’s use of sonar and ruled that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy. |
| Select Filings: | 2008.12.12 Opinion (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf2008.08.12 AFBF Amicus Brief.pdf |