ILNews

7th Circuit addresses challenges under the RFA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Agriculture in a suit challenging the agency's rulemaking process and amendment to a milk marketing order. It was the first time the 7th Circuit had addressed who could bring a challenge to a regulatory flexibility analysis or certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The case, White Eagle Cooperative Association, et al. v. Charles F. Conner, acting secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, et al.,No. 07-3545, was filed by White Eagle Cooperative Association, a cooperative made up of milk producers, after the USDA amended the Mideast Milk Marketing Order. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act ensures producers receive a uniform minimum price for their product, regardless of how it is used; however, the AMAA only protects handlers, who prepare milk for resale. The country is divided into regional areas and governed by milk-marketing orders; White Eagle is part of the Mideast order. The orders provide the details for fixing and enforcing minimum prices handlers have to pay for the milk they buy on a monthly basis.

White Eagle challenged the regulation of diversion limits, which are the maximum percentage a handler can divert to plants that don't participate in the standards under the order. Limits prevent the inclusion in the pool of participating plants of excessive quantities of milk diverted to non-pool plants, which affects the prices paid. After hearing public comments on the issue, the USDA reduced diversion limits.

White Eagle filed suit, alleging various violations, including the USDA violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act by failing to undertake an analysis under the RFA and not supporting its RFA certification with any facts.

The 7th Circuit looked to decisions from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia on the RFA issue to adopt the rule that small entities directly regulated by the proposed statute may bring a challenge to the RFA analysis or certification of an agency. Because the amendment to the order concerning diversion limits expressly regulates only the handlers' conduct, White Eagle, as a producer, doesn't have standing to challenge the analysis under the RFA, wrote Judge Kenneth Ripple.

The 7th Circuit also affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the USDA on White Eagle's other alleged violations by the USDA of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, the USDA's rules of practice, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The USDA's adoption of the present order wasn't arbitrary or capricious and the agency considered relevant evidence in adopting the current rule, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  2. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  3. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  4. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT