Transcript Roberts, CJ - Agricultural Law Decisions

The Era of CJ Roberts:
The Agricultural Law Decisions
Drew L. Kershen
Earl Sneed Centennial Prof. Emeritus
University of Oklahoma, College of Law
AALA Albuquerque, October 2014
Roberts Era
Cases Decided by Term
Roberts Era
Statistics
• 17th Chief Justice; Senate confirmation on
29 Sept 2005
• October Term 2005 through July 2014
– 611 full opinions
– Kershen search terms related to agricultural
law
• 15 cases with direct agricultural law implications
• 2.4% of all full opinions
Roberts Era:
Agricultural Law Cases
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 126 S. Ct. 514 (2005) (Fair Labor
Standards Act – meat packing – compensable time).
Rapanos v. United States 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006) (Clean Water
Act – EPA enforcement – waters of the United States).
Wilkie v. Robbins, 127 S. Ct. 2588 (2007) (Bivens Claims –
RICO – Suit against Bureau of Land Management).
Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex
rel., 130 S. Ct. 1396 (2010) (False Claims Act – Qui tam
public disclosure --Soil & Water Conservation Districts).
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743
(2010) (National Environmental Policy Act – APHIS partial
deregulation – judicial power to use remedy of injunction).
Roberts Era
Agricultural Law Cases
6.
Montana v. Wyoming, 131 S. Ct. 1765 (2011) (Interstate
Compact Clause – water law – agricultural prior
appropriation.
7. National Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 132 S. Ct. 965 (2012) (Federal
Meat Inspection Act – federal preemption – animal welfare).
8. Sackett v. E.P.A., 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012) (Clean Water Act
– administrative law – final agency action).
9. Hall v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1882 (2012) (Chapter 12
bankruptcy – tax law – IRS tax lien priority on capital gains).
10. Arkansas Game and Fish Com’n v. United States 133 S. Ct.
511 (2012) (Takings clause -- eminent domain – temporary
flowage easement).
Roberts Era:
Agricultural Law Cases
11. Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 133 S.
Ct. 1326 (2013) (Clean Water Act – NPDES – stormwater
runoff on logging roads).
12. Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1761 (2013) (Patents –
patent exhaustion – infringement by planting post-harvest
seeds purchased from elevator) .
13. Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 133 S. Ct. 2053 (2013)
(Raisin Marketing Order – administrative law -- takings claim
from enforcement proceeding).
14. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133
S. Ct. 2107 (2013) (Patents – patentable subject matter –
products of nature).
15. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S.
Ct. 2586 (2013) (Takings clause – eminent domain – monetary
exactions for land use permit).
Classification
One Approach
• Constitutional Law (5)
– Monetary claims: Takings clause (3); Bivens (1)
– Federal Preemption (1)
• Environmental law (4)
– CWA (3); NEPA (1)
•
•
•
•
•
Patents (2)
Bankruptcy (1)
False Claims Act (1)
Labor Law (1)
Water Law (1) (original jurisdiction; state law)
Three Cases
• Rapanos v. United States
– 4-1-4 decision – substantial nexus test ( J.
Kennedy)
– EPA Proposed Rule – Waters of the United States
• Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
– GM alfalfa – deregulation – judicial remedy of
injunction
– GM alfalfa deregulated after EIS – adopted by
90%+ of U.S. alfalfa growers
• Montana v. Wyoming – next several slides
History
Procedural Posture
• Yellowstone River Compact, 1950
– Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming
– Negotiations from 1932 until 1950
• The 1950 Agreement is fourth try
• Montana v. Wyoming
– Original jurisdiction – January 2007 filed
– Barton H. Thompson, Special Master
• http://www.stanford.edu/dept/law/mvn
• 1st Interim Report of Special Master on February 20, 2010
–
–
–
–
131 S. Ct. 1765, 179 L.Ed.2d 799 (U.S. 2011)
Hearings Oct & Dec ‘13; Post-Hearing Briefs Mar & Apr ‘14
Awaiting Special Master’s Judgment & Opinion
New Motion to Dismiss filed by Wyoming at Supreme Ct.
Special Master Rulings
on Structure of the Compact
• Part V(A) pre-1950 water uses – senior to all other
water uses post January 1, 1950
– No unified priority list for pre-1950 Montana and
Wyoming water users
– Seniority within each state to be applied within each
state
• Part V(B) post January 1, 1950 uses are subject to
call of the river, if pre-1950 uses cannot be satisfied
– Seniority within each state first to protect the pre1950 uses
– Call of the river across state lines only if pre-1950 uses
cannot be satisfied by state within borders senior
protection
Montana’s Claims
• # 1: Increased consumption of water on
existing acres of irrigated land in Wyoming;
• # 2: New groundwater withdrawals,
particularly associated with coal-bed
methane production, in Wyoming;
• # 3: Construction and Use of new and
expanded storage facilities on Wyoming
tributaries
• # 4: Irrigation of new acres in Wyoming
Special Master Rulings
on Montana’s Claim # 1
• # 1: Increased consumption of water on
existing acres of irrigated land in Wyoming
– Wyoming irrigators have changed from ditch
irrigation to sprinkler irrigation – much less runoff
into the streams
– Changes in method of diversion – concept of “no
injury” rule (point of diversion, purpose of use,
and place of use)
– Changes in water efficiency by water user
– Recapture and reuse of runoff
• Holding: no violation by Wyoming or its
irrigators
Supreme Court
2011 Opinion
• Supreme Court (Justice Thomas) decided
appeals of Special Master Holdings only as to:
– Structure of the Compact; Montana’s Claim # 1
– All other issues remanded
– Compact does not guarantee Montana a specific
amount of water at its border
• % of divertible flow measured on an annual basis
• Holding: Affirmed the rulings of Special
Master
Thank you