Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Biosecurity
USDA Compensation Determination Made Pursuant to
7 U.S.C. § 8306(d) is Non-Reviewable
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Cebe Farms, Inc. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 491 (Fed. Cl. 2008), the United States Court of Federal Claims held that a USDA determination made pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 8306(d) was non-reviewable.
Background
Following an outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease in Southern California, the USDA destroyed several poultry flocks to attempt to stop the disease from spreading. Id. at 492. A poultry farmer who had lost his flock as a result brought a 5th Amendment takings claim for just compensation against the USDA. Id. The USDA offered some compensation, but the farmer argued that it was insufficient because his chickens and eggs were "genetically unique and irreplaceable." Id. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Id.
Arguments
Plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the USDA had failed to adequately compensate him for the loss of his chickens and eggs, which were "genetically unique and irreplaceable" because those particular breeds of colored broilers had become extinct. Id. at 492.
The USDA argued that the plaintiff had not contracted with government representatives with authority to bind the government, that the agency decision regarding compensation was not subject to judicial review, and that the agency's determination that the birds and eggs were infected (thereby allowing the USDA to use its police powers) precluded plaintiff's claims for compensation. Id. at 492-93.
Analysis and Holdings
The court noted that it was bound by the clear language of 7 U.S.C. § 8306(d), and therefore agreed that the plaintiff should not be able to sue to enforce an independent appraiser's valuation of his flock, and held that the USDA's administrative determination of the amount of compensation made pursuant to § 8306(d) was not subject to review. Id. at 495. The court further held that regardless of whether the flock was actually infected, just compensation under the 5th Amendment would still be required, so it rejected the government's argument that such determination of disease precluded just compensation claims. Id. at 497. The court therefore allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint, and partially granted the defendant's motions for summary judgment. Id. at 498.
The case was decided on August 20, 2008.