Organization for Competitive Markets v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 17-3723 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the USDA's 2017 orders withdrawing an interim final rule and two proposed regulations promulgated under the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA). The court held that the USDA actions were not arbitrary nor capricious where the USDA provided legitimate regulatory and substantive concerns. In this case, the USDA explained that it was withdrawing the interim final rule and taking no further action on the proposed regulations because the proposed regulatory change of course would generate protracted litigation, adopt vague and ambiguous terms, and might prevent innovation and foster vertical integration that would hinder new market entrants. The court held that the USDA did not unlawfully withhold action by failing to comply with an absolute congressional deadline in Section 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Packers and Stockyard Act. The petitioners seek review of 2017 USDA orders withdrawing an interim final rule and two proposed regulations promulgated under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 181 et seq. The USDA's action in withdrawing the rule and regulations, which were promulgated under the previous presidential administration and expanded the agency's regulatory authority, was not arbitrary or capricious as it was supported by legitimate regulatory and substantive concerns that the new rule and regulations would generate protracted litigation, adopted vague and ambiguous terms and might prevent innovation and foster vertical integration which would hinder new market entrants; the court cannot conclude that USDA had "unlawfully withheld" action by failing to comply with an absolute congressional deadline in Section 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill. The petition for review is denied in its entirety.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.