Date:
6/27/2019
Title:
Cattlemen in the Courts: What Two Recent Cases Mean for Producers
In the fight for the future of the cattle industry, the
daily drama of Capitol Hill attracts most of the attention. But NCBA invests
considerable resources in legal battles that also have implications for
farmers, ranchers, and landowners across the country. Two recent Supreme Court
decisions illustrate why the judicial system is a critical component of NCBA’s
work.
First, in Knick
v Township of Scott, the
Supreme Court decided that landowners should have direct access to federal
court in “takings” cases.
A taking occurs when the government illegally seizes property or infringes on a
property owner’s right to control their land. In this case, Pennsylvania
resident Rose Mary Knick saw the rights to her 90-acre farmland
literally trampled on when a local ordinance permitted anyone onto her private
property in order to access an alleged burial site.
Knick challenged the ordinance as a violation of her
property rights, but due to a decades-old Supreme Court decision known as the Williamson
Country doctrine, she was effectively barred from taking her case to
federal court. That’s because, under the Williamson County doctrine,
Knick could not go to federal court without first going to state court; but if
she went to state court and lost, her takings claim would be barred from
federal court. NCBA submitted a brief in support of Knick, and thankfully the
Supreme Court ruled in her favor. The decision overturns the Williamson
Country doctrine and ensures
that landowners get their day in court.
In another Supreme Court case (Kisor v. Wilkie), the
Justices considered the constitutionality of Auer deference, an
administrative doctrine that provides federal agencies the power to interpret
(and often reinterpret) their own vague rules and regulations. While the Court
failed to overturn Auer, it did provide agencies and the regulated
community with important boundaries for the Doctrine’s application (read NCBA's legal brief in the case here). Chief
Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that Auer deference can
only be used when a court determines that a regulation is “genuinely
ambiguous,” requiring that any new interpretation be “reasonable,” judged by
its character and context. Following the Kisor decision, courts will no
longer allow federal agencies to flip-flop when it comes to regulatory
interpretation, creating greater certainty for cattlemen across the country.