 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amicus Briefs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FLAG HomeWays to Support FLAG
 Give with confidence. GiveDirect. News & Alerts
|
Court DocumentsGale v. Jones Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief and Amici CuriaeBrief of National Farmers Union, National Family Farm Coalition, and 40 Other Organizations U.S. Supreme Court in Case No. 06-1045 (March 1, 2007) view press release Gale v. Jones Motion of Proposed Amici Curiae and Brief of Amici Curiae National Farmers Union, National Family Farm Coalition, American Corn Growers Association, Minnesota Farmers Union, Land Stewardship Project, North Dakota Farmers Union, Dakota Resource Council, South Dakota Farmers Union, Dakota Rural Action, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Farmers Union, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Arkansas Farmers Union, Campaign for Family Farms, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Illinois Farmers Union, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Indiana Farmers Union, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Powder River Basin Resource Council, Kansas Farmers Union, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Ohio Farmers Union, Michigan Farmers Union, Pennsylvania Farmers Union, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Montana Farmers Union, Utah Farmers Union, Texas Farmers Union, Alaska Farmers Union, Oregon Farmers Union, Washington Farmers Union, and California Farmers Union for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants and in Support of Reversal of the Judgment Below, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Apr. 3, 2006) view press release Kenny Austin, et. al., v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. Motion to File as Amici Curiae and Brief of Amici Curiae Rural Advancement Foundation International - USA and Thirty-nine Agricultural Organizations, Mississippi Supreme Court (June 1, 2005) view press release Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Association Campaign for Family Farms and 49 Family Farm and Ranch Organizations Brief of Amici Curiae , U.S. Supreme Court (Oct. 15, 2004) Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. Motion and Brief of Amici Curiae Fifty Leading Scholars, Farmers, Ranchers, Farm and Ranch Organizations, Consumer roups, and Religious Organizations in Suport of Plaintiffs-Appellants Supporting Reversal, U.S. Court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (June 16, 2004) Harvey v. Veneman Motion and Brief of Amici Curiae Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides in Support of Plaintiff/Appellant, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (June 14, 2004) Harvey v. Veneman Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Main (January 26, 2005) view press release Dakota Rural Action, et. al. v. South Dakota Farm Bureau, et. al. Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae and Brief of Amici Curiae National Farmers Union, South Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Farmers Union, Minneosta Farmers union, Iowa Farmers Union, Campaign for Family Farms, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Dakota Resource Council, National Family Farm Coalition, and Friends of the Constitution in Support of Petitioners, U.S. Supreme Court (Feb. 24, 2004) view press release South Dakota Farm Bureau v. Hazeltine Motion and Brief of Amici Curiae National Farmers Union, Minnesota Farmers Union, South Dakota Farmers Union, Iowa Farmers Union, North Dakota Farmers Union, Land Stewardship Project, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Campaign for Family Farms, and Western Organization of Resource Councils in Support of Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants Dakota Rural Action's and South Dakota Resources Coalition's Petition for Rehearing En Banc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Sept. 16, 2003) view press release Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Miller Brief of Amici Curiae Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Land Stewardship Project, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Campaign for Family Farms, and National Family Farm Coalition in Support of Defendant-Appellant Thomas J. Miller and in Support of Reversal of the Judgment Below, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Apr. 22, 2003) view press release Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Miller Supplemental Brief of Amici Curiae Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Land Stewardship Project, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Campaign for Family Farms, and National Family Farm Coalition in Support of Defendant-Appellant Thomas J. Miller and in Support of Reversal of the Judgment Below, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Oct. 16, 2003) view press release Peterson v. BASF Minnesota Farmers Union Brief of Amicus Curiae in support of Plaintiffs/Respondents, Minnesota Supreme Court (July 23, 2003) view press release Wendinger v. Frost Farms Inc.; and Wakefield Pork, Inc. Brief and Appendix of Amicus Curiae Land Stewardship Project, Minneosta Appeals Court (Dec. 4, 2002) United States v. United Foods, Inc. Brief of Amici Curiae Jeanne and Steve Charter, Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc., The Western Organization of Resource Councils, Dakota Resource Council, Powder River Basin Resource Council, The Idaho Rural Council, and the Campaign for Family Farms in Support of Respondent, U.S. Supreme Court, 533 U.S. 405 (2001) .
News Release For More Information: Farm and Rural Organizations Urge the U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold State Laws that Promote Family Farming ST. PAUL , MINN. —Representing 42 national, regional, and state farm and community organizations, Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG) today filed an Amici Curiae, or Friend of the Court, brief asking the United States Supreme Court to uphold states’ authority to enact laws that promote family farming by restricting corporations’ ability to own farmland or engage in farming. The Amici brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse a December 2006 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit which struck down “Initiative 300,” Nebraska’s voter-enacted constitutional amendment that restricts non-family-owned corporations from engaging in farming and ranching. The Court of Appeals held that the Nebraska corporate farming law violates the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against out-of-state economic interests. The farm organizations argue that Initiative 300, like other states’ laws restricting corporate farming, fosters family farming and healthy rural communities, and is a legitimate regulation of a state’s agricultural system. “Studies and real-life experiences show that family farming provides significant social, environmental, and economic benefits for entire rural communities,” says Tom Buis, President of National Farmers Union. Nebraska Farmers Union President John Hansen adds, “The citizens of Nebraska overwhelmingly voted to place Initiative 300 in our state constitution in 1982. It has served our state well by promoting family farms and ranches. The will of the people should be respected, and the courts should not overrule their decision.” K athy Ozer , Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition, emphasizes that “Many states have recognized the importance of maintaining family farming because family farmers support the rural communities they live in: they send their children to the local schools, buy their inputs from local suppliers, and care about passing on the land to the next generation. We believe it’s vital for states to continue to be able to promote family farms in order to sustain robust rural communities.” Eight states ( Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) have laws similar to Nebraska’s that may be open to legal challenge if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is not reversed. “These laws generally require that, in order to invoke the benefit of a liability-shielding corporate business form, farm entities must have some family connection to the land and at least one family member must maintain some direct connection to the farming way of life,” said Jessica Shoemaker, FLAG Staff Attorney. Susan Stokes, FLAG’s Executive Director, cautions: “The Eighth Circuit decision in this case takes away a critical legal tool states have long relied upon for fostering healthy rural communities. Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit opinion is necessary for states to retain the ability to pass laws that help safeguard the family farm system of agriculture.” The organizations that joined in the Amicus brief are:
View Brief of Amici Curiae (PDF Format) News Release For More Information: Farm Organizations Urge a U.S. Court of Appeals to Uphold State Laws that Promote Family Farming. ST. PAUL , MINN. —Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG) today filed an Amicus, or Friend of the Court, brief asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold states' authority to enact laws that promote family farming by restricting corporations’ ability to own farmland or engage in farming. The Amicus brief, filed on behalf of 35 national, regional, and state farm and community organizations, urges the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a December 2005 decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska which struck down "Initiative 300," Nebraska's constitutional amendment that restricts non-family-owned corporations from engaging in farming and ranching. The U.S. District Court held that the Nebraska corporate farming law violates the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against out-of-state economic interests. The farm organizations argue that Initiative 300, like other states’ laws restricting corporate farming, fosters family farming and healthy rural communities, and is a legitimate regulation of a state's agricultural system. "Studies and real-life experiences show that family farming provides real social and economic benefits for entire rural communities," says Kathy Ozer, Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition. "In contrast, non-family-owned corporate farming is associated with lower incomes, less civic involvement, and a decline in the general welfare of rural America." Minnesota Farmers Union President Doug Peterson adds, "The citizens of Nebraska wisely voted to approve a constitutional amendment which they believed promotes family farming and allows for the continued viability of their rural communities. The courts should not overrule their decision." Mark Schultz, Policy Program Director for the Land Stewardship Project, emphasized, "Other states have also recognized the importance of preserving family farming through restrictions on non-family-based corporate farming. For example, the Minnesota Legislature found that it is in the interests of the state to encourage and protect the family farm as the most socially desirable mode of agricultural production. Family farming enhances the stability and well-being of our rural communities and rural families." Eight states have laws similar to Nebraska’s that may be open to legal challenge if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals does not reverse the lower court’s decision in this case. Susan Stokes, FLAG’s Executive Director, warns: "An Eighth Circuit decision reversing the U.S. District Court in Nebraska is key to states’ retaining the ability to pass laws that help preserve the family farm system of agriculture." The organizations that joined in the Amicus brief are:
Farmers' Legal Action Group is a non-profit law center dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land. The brief is available at www.flaginc.org. View the Amicus Brief and Motion (PDF) News Release For More Information: 39 National and Regional Farm Organizations File Amicus Brief Supporting Farmers' right to go to Court Mississippi , June 9, 2005 – Thirty-nine farm national and regional farm organizations have joined together and submitted a brief of amicus curiae (friend of the court) to protect American farmers’ right to seek justice in a public court. The brief supports the decision of the Chancery Court of Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi that found the mandatory binding arbitration clause in the Sanderson Farms hatching egg contract was unenforceable. "This [Sanderson] contract of adhesion included not merely a mandatory arbitration provision, but one loaded with bells and whistles intended to compel Respondents to give up any possible claims they might have or acquire against the Company,” noted the lawyers in the amicus. “This was not a provision to resolve contract disputes, but to suppress them.” The Sanderson arbitration clause was presented to the poultry farmers in the winter of 1996. The individual farmers had already invested a quarter of a million dollars or more in company-required poultry barns and equipment. If a farmer refused to sign the new contract, he or she would be out of business and face almost certain bankruptcy. In addition, while the company did hold informational meetings, the poultry farmers were never given an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the new contract nor were they able to authorize another person or association to negotiate on their behalf. In short, Sanderson Farms offered the new take-it-or-leave-it contract with arbitration at a time when the farmers could not reasonably refuse to sign - and Sanderson Farms knew full well they could not refuse. Increasingly, farmers under production contracts with poultry and livestock companies are being forced to sign contracts with binding mandatory arbitration clauses and waive their legal rights to access the public court system. The arbitration clause prevents farmers from taking any action in court if a conflict arises between them and the company. Instead, the farmers are forced into a private system that has proven to be prohibitively expensive and to remove many of the procedural safeguards found in the public courts. In effect, these clauses insure large, integrated agribusinesses cannot be held accountable by their growers for unfair or unjust practices, even if the companies have committed flagrant violations of state and federal law. "If these coercive clauses are allowed to go unchallenged, this erosion of farmers' legal rights and access to fair and balanced markets will spread rapidly to other commodities and agricultural contracts," warned Laura Deaton Klauke, Director of the Contract Agriculture Reform Program of the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI-USA). RAFI-USA is one of the coordinating organizations of the amicus effort. View Brief of Amici Curiae (PDF format) News Release For More Information: Court Acts to Preserve Integrity of National Organic Program; Rules USDA Overstepped its Authority Boston: In the first legal test of USDA's implementation of the National Organic Program to reach the federal courts, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on January 26, 2005 that USDA had overstepped its authority in several important respects. Arthur Harvey, an organic blueberry grower, organic inspector, and consumer of organic foods, raised seven objections to the regulations passed by USDA to implement the National Organic Program. The National Organic Program provides for third-party certification of claims that organic farmers and food processors followed organic practices in producing food. Food that is certified organic may bear the USDA Organic seal, while food that is certified as being made with a qualifying percentage of organic ingredients may make that claim on its label. Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), the Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides filed a friend of the court brief in the case, Harvey v. Veneman. The friend of the court brief, which was submitted by Farmers' Legal Action Group and the Center for Food Safety, addressed three of the seven issues raised by Mr. Harvey in his challenge to USDA's implementation of the National Organic Program. The court ruled in Mr. Harvey's favor on the three counts addressed by the friend of the court brief. Joseph Mendelson, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety, observed that "The ruling by Judge Schwarzer affirmed the basic principle that no one--not even the United States Department of Agriculture--is above the law." Judge Schwarzer is a senior district judge of the Northern District of California, who sat on the First Circuit panel by designation. Michael Sligh, Director of Sustainable Agriculture Policy at the Rural Advancement Foundation International and founding chair of the National Organic Standards Board stated, "We were compelled to submit a 'friend of the court' brief in this case to urge the court of appeals not to cede to USDA new powers not provided for in the law. Basic principles of good government process and the integrity of the USDA Organic seal were at stake." Sligh noted that the court ruling may result in the need for changes in the practices of some organic farmers and organic food processors who have complied in good faith with current USDA regulations. He stated, "We are strongly advocating for a reasonable and adequate timeline for implementing the court's decision so that organic family farmers and others have an opportunity to sort out the implications of the decision for their own operations." Jay Feldman, the Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, agreed that, "We will work with our partners in the organic community to ensure that consumer expectations of organic food continue to be met without disruption in the organic marketplace." Federal court rules allow 45 days for USDA and Mr. Harvey to decide whether to seek review of the decision by the entire First Circuit. The return of the First Circuit's decision to the District Court of Maine will not take place until at least 7 days after that time has run. Action by the District Court to carry out the First Circuit's order could be further delayed if either party seeks review before the United States Supreme Court. Jill Krueger, an attorney at Farmer's Legal Action Group stated, "We hope that USDA will continue to work with the organic community as it considers how to respond to the First Circuit's ruling. We believe that if we work together and engage in public dialogue and debate, we can find a way for USDA to implement the National Organic Program so that it upholds the integrity of the law and the USDA Organic label, while not placing undue burdens upon organic family farmers and organic food handlers." Farmers' Legal Action Group is a nonprofit law center in St. Paul, Minnesota dedicated to providing legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to help keep family farmers on the land. Rural Advancement Foundation International is a public interest organization based in Pittsboro, North Carolina . Through its many research and educational activities and through its membership in the National Organic Coalition, RAFI-USA provides a voice for promoting organic agricultural integrity and for protecting rights of family farmers. Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the proliferation of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS engages in legal, scientific and grassroots initiatives to guide national and international policymaking on critical food safety issues. Beyond Pesticides, working with allies to protect public health and the environment, is leading the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. Founded in 1981, the organization, through its information and advocacy programs, effects change through local action, assisting individuals and community-based organizations to stimulate discussion on the hazards of toxic pesticides, while promoting protective policies and practices. View Decision News Release For More Information: National Coalition of Farm Groups Urges U.S. Supreme Court to uphold state family farm laws ST. PAUL, MINN. — Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) today filed an Amicus, or Friend of the Court, brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold states' authority to enact laws that help family farmers. The Amicus brief, filed on behalf of a coalition of 76 farm groups, urges the Supreme Court to review and reverse an October 2003 decision of the Eighth Circuit striking down "Amendment E," The Eighth Circuit held the amendment is unconstitutional because it was intended to discriminate against out-of-state corporations. The coalition argues that Amendment E, like other corporate farm statutes, fosters family farming and healthy rural communities, and is a legitimate regulation of a state's agriculture. "Studies and real-life experience have shown that family farmers are good stewards of the land and are more invested in their rural communities than corporations that don't live in the community," says Dave Fredrickson, President of National Farmers Union. South Dakota Farmers Union President Dennis Weise adds, "The citizens of South Dakota wisely voted to approve a constitutional amendment which they believed would allow for the continued viability of their rural communities, and the courts should not overrule their decision." Nine states, including South Dakota, have similar statutes that could be challenged if the Supreme Court does not reverse the Eighth Circuit's opinion. Susan Stokes, FLAG's Legal Director, warns: "The Eighth Circuit's decision on Amendment E jeopardizes the states' ability to pass laws that help preserve the family farm system of agriculture." Smithfield has challenged the constitutionality of Iowa 's corporate farm statute, and that case is also on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. The organizations that joined in the Amicus brief are:
View the Amicus Brief (PDF format) FLAG Files Supplemental Amicus Brief in Smithfield v. Miller At the request of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, on October 17, 2003, FLAG submitted a supplemental amicus brief on behalf of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and several other family farm organizations in Smithfield v. Miller, No. 03-1411. A case pending before the Eighth Circuit determining the validity of an Iowa statute prohibiting processors from owning, operating, or controlling livestock operations in the state. Listen to the October 23, 2003, oral argument heard before the Eighth Circuit in St. Paul, Minnesota. FLAG Files Amicus Brief in South Dakota Amendment E Case On September 16, 2003, FLAG submitted a motion and proposed amicus brief on behalf of National Farmers Union, Minnesota Farmers Union, South Dakota Farmers Union, Iowa Farmers Union, North Dakota Farmers Union, Land Stewardship Project, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, the Campaign for Family Farms, and Western Organization of Resource Councils in support of a petition for the full the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear a case determining the validity of South Dakota Amendment E that would prohibit corporations from having an interest in farmland or farming in the state. The case is South Dakota Farm Bureau v. Hazeltine, No. 02-2366. FLAG Files Amicus Brief in Peterson v. BASF On July 23, 2003, FLAG submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Minnesota Farmers Union in a case before the Minnesota Supreme Court that is determining the validity of a nationwide class action lawsuit filed by farmers. A jury found that farmers were defrauded by BASF through the marketing of a herbicide. The case is Peterson v. BASF, No. C3-02-857. FLAG Files Amicus Brief in Smithfield v. Miller On April 22, 2003, FLAG submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and several other family farm organizations in a case before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals determining the validity of an Iowa statute prohibiting processors from owning, operating, or controlling livestock operations in the state. The case is Smithfield v. Miller, No. 03-1411. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thank you for visiting FLAG's web site. Please note that the information located on this site is not intended to provide specific legal advice. You should consult an attorney and not rely on any information contained herein regarding your specific situation. 
Special SectionsDisaster | Shared Appreciation | Federal Register
Comments to Rules | FSA News & Notices | Contracts LitigationDisclaimer | Privacy Statement Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. © 1997-2008, Farmers' Legal Action Group, Inc. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Join Email List
