Farm-to-Consumer Is Working on Food Freedom Litigation and Regulatory Push Back

- Tweet0
- 0
- Pin It 0
- 0
- Subscribe to RSS
Subscribe

Subject: Farm-to-Consumer Is Working on Food Freedom Litigation and Regulatory Push Back

Subscribe | Give | Join | Renew

Farm-to-Consumer Is Working
on Food Freedom Litigation and
Regulatory Push Back

Dear Friend,

For the first half of 2024 important legal actions across the country have had our attention.

We updated you recently about new developments in the USDA’s RFID ear tag mandate, which affects independent ranchers and farmers nationwide. Many of you asked about the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to overturn the Chevron Doctrine, so we’ve answered your questions below.

We also have active litigation in Maine regarding , and we are working in Oregon on the issue of new CAFO rules that will cause undue hardship on smaller farms and ranches there.

Rest assured, we are consistently monitoring and working on behalf of our members and independent farmers, ranchers, cottage food makers, homesteaders, and concerned consumers around the nation.

Maine Food Sovereignty and the Right to Food

We have active litigation in Maine regarding food sovereignty in that state and are awaiting a judge’s decision. As many of you know several FTCLDF members, along with Kenduskeag Kitchen, the kitchen’s customers, and FTCLDF have been involved in a legal challenge against the state of Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS).

The Maine DHHS has been enforcing laws in violation of the Maine Food Sovereignty law and the Maine Right to Food Constitutional Amendment. The Maine DHHS insists that Kenduskeag Kitchen must obtain a “food eating establishment” license despite the fact that state statute and local ordinance have authorized the kitchen. Obtaining such license would require a commercial kitchen, which is simply not affordable. We are waiting on a ruling from the court on FTCLDF’s Motion for Injunctive Relief and the State’s Motion to Dismiss.

This has been a lengthy process, and we are certain that it is nowhere near being over. To support these efforts in Maine, we plan to hold a fundraiser in late September. If you have any ideas of potential contributors or sponsors to the event or are interested in being involved, please reach out to madeline@farmtoconsumer.org.

Oregon Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
Comment Deadline is July 22

In Oregon the Oregon Department of Agriculture announced in March 2024 that it has withdrawn its new policy that would require any small producer, including small dairy producers, to obtain the state CAFO water discharge permit.

This is a rule that FTCLDF and others have been working to change for the last year. However, there is still work to be done.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture has now proposed a formal administrative rule re CAFO permits, and Oregonians have until July 22, 2024 to submit comments on the implementation of the new rule.

FTCLDF will be in touch with OR members, but while it does not appear to require CAFO permits for the smallest operations, it would still require operations to meet Agricultural Water Quality Management Standards.

Please see the rule and how to submit comments HERE.

The Chevron Doctrine and Corner Post Decision

On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court overruled its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, which created what is known as the “Chevron Doctrine.”

The Chevron Doctrine called for judicial deference to agencies in situations where the law is unclear. With the Court’s recent overrule, the court ruled that the Administrative Procedures Act requires courts to exercise their independent discretion in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.

In another recent decision, "Corner Post," the Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations in challenging rules passed by federal agencies is not six years from the time the regulation was passed, but six years from the date of injury. This likely will increase the ability of challenges to federal rules to be brought.

The Chevron Doctrine, Corner Post and RFID

FTCLDF has received questions regarding how the Court’s recent decisions may impact the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) mandatory rule relating to electronic animal identification (RFID).

There will certainly be legal challenges to the new rule, particularly if Joint Resolution No. 167 filed by Representative Harriet Hageman (R. WY) and Senator Lummis (R.WY) and Senator Rounds’ (R. S.D.) bill S. 4282 both fail to pass.

When considering the RFID rule, courts will no longer be required to defer to the APHIS interpretation of the federal law that APHIS is authorized to enforce.

The Corner Post decision means there will be more time for anyone harmed to challenge a regulatory action,

Important!

Please note that the Court's decision on Chevron does not necessarily curtail activities of government agencies. What the decision holds is that in a legal challenge, the courts will no longer grant deference to the agency’s interpretation of the law.

What You Can Do

Read our most recent Action Alert on the RFID issue, and the legislation proposed to fight the mandate. Take the suggested action steps.

If you are not yet a member, please join us today! Forward this email to spread the word about the importance of fair food and farming legislation. Thank you for taking action now!

GIVE TODAY TO SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS

In good health,

Alexia Kulwiec
Executive Director, FTCLDF

GIVE TODAY

One minute is all it takes to process your $10, $20, $50, or $100 gift to
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.

Questions? Visit us on the web at www.farmtoconsumer.org
or call our offices at (703) 208-FARM (3276).

We invite you to follow us on social media for the latest updates.