Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

R-CALF USA, et al. v. USDA

CASE SUMMARY

New Civil Liberties Alliance challenges the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) unlawful new rule requiring electronically readable (EID) eartags for certain cattle and bison transported across state lines, rather than long-used visual tags.

In 2013, APHIS promulgated a final rule regulating traceability for interstate livestock movements, a regulation that permitted several forms of “official identification” for certain cattle and bison moving across state lines, including both visual-only and electronically readable eartags and providing producers with flexibility to choose among options. Over the past decade, the agency advanced and abandoned less formal measures for mandating radio frequency identification (RFID) eartags. In May 2024, however, APHIS issued its new rule to end the use of visual-only eartags as a form of official identification for certain cattle and bison moving between states, requiring visually readable EID eartags in their place. This illegal move was also unnecessary, as the existing Animal Disease Traceability framework is already proven effective.

The Animal Health Protection Act does not give USDA and APHIS the power to mandate EID eartags. Courts certainly do not have to defer to the agencies’ interpretation of the Act after NCLA’s recent Supreme Court victory in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which overturned Chevron deference. The new rule is also arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, since the agencies fail to reasonably explain how the EID Final Rule “is necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock.” APHIS also violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act as well, failing to calculate the new rule’s true cost to producers—and consumers.

OUR CLIENT

Kenny Fox, Plaintiff

OUR TEAM

Kara Rollins
Litigation Counsel
Sheng Li
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Request to Postpone or Amend the Effective Date of the Amendment to 9 C.F.R. § 86.4(a)(1)(i) published May 9, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 39,540–566)

November 4, 2024 | Read More

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

October 30, 2024 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Sues to Stop USDA’s Illegal, Unnecessary Rule Mandating Electronic Eartags for Cattle and Bison

October 31, 2024 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • Aposhian v. Garland

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Guidance Abuse

    Agency guidance is easier to promulgate than formal rules and regulations, so agencies prefer to issue it. Such “guidance” supplies relatively informal indications of how an agency interprets rules and statutes. Although guidance is not permitted to bind Americans (unlike laws made by elected legislators), agencies treat guidance as binding and courts often fail to stop them.

    Case Active - January 7, 2019

    Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

    View Case
  • Howard and Karen Baldwin v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed - February 24, 2020

    Agencies: Internal Revenue Service

    View Case
  • Marcus Broadway v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: U.S. Sentencing Commission

    View Case
  • Thomas H. Buffington v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Department of Veterans Affairs

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.