Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Corporate Farming Laws
South Dakota Anti-Corporate Farming
Amendment Unconstitutional
Bhargavi MotukuriNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
Summary of Decision
In South Dakota Farm Bureau v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a constitutional amendment (hereinafter Amendment E) that prohibited corporations from acquiring land used for farming and from otherwise engaging in farming in South Dakota violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Background
Thirteen parties (hereinafter plaintiffs), consisting of agricultural operators, feedlot operators, disabled farmers, utility companies, and others brought an action challenging the validity of Amendment E to South Dakota Constitution. See id. at 587. The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota held that Amendment E violated dormant Commerce Clause and enjoined the state from enforcing the amendment. See id. at 589. The defendants appealed the district court's opinion to the Eighth Circuit. See id.
Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that Amendment E violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. See id. at 593-94.
Analysis and Holding
The court held that Amendment E was motivated by a discriminatory purpose and therefore was unconstitutional unless the defendants could demonstrate that they had no other method by which they could advance their legitimate local interest. See id. at 597.
The court next determined that the defendants failed to show that there was no other method of advancing their legitimate local interest of protecting the family farms and protecting their environment. See id. It added that "[b]ecause Amendment E has a discriminatory purpose, and because the Defendants have not satisfied their burden of showing that non-discriminatory alternatives would not advance Amendment E's interests, we must conclude that Amendment E violates the dormant Commerce Clause." Id.
The case was decided on August 19, 2003; this summary was posted Jan. 13, 2005.