As 2024 comes to a close, let’s take a look back at some of the biggest agricultural law stories across the United States.  If you want to hear more about these issues, click here for a podcast episode I did with Paul Goeringer.

Photo by Rob Martinez 

US Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Deference. 

It seems likely that nearly every legal year in review, regardless of the specific focus, will include the United States Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.  This decision will have broad implications for all industries, including agriculture. In this decision, the Court overturned Chevron deference, a legal concept that had existed since 1984 when the Court decided Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.  The overturning of Chevron deference in Loper Bright means that in challenges to agency actions, courts are no longer required to defer to agency expertise when considering the legality of an agency action in a situation where Congress’ instructions to the agency were unclear or ambiguous.  This case will almost certainly impact current and future cases and agency rulemaking going forward at many agencies including the USDA, EPA, and  US Fish and Wildlife Service. To hear more about this case and other United States Supreme Court decisions impacting agriculture, click here to listen to my podcast episode recapping the SCOTUS term with Jesse Richardson and Anthony Schutz.

Over-the-top dicamba registration vacated; new applications filed, but not yet approved.

In February, an Arizona federal judge issued an order in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. EPA, vacating the FIFRA registration of the over-the-top dicamba products Xtendimax, Enginia, and Tavium labeled for use in soybeans and cotton. EPA responded by issuing an “existing stocks” order allowing some limited uses of the products that were already prepared for sale and use for the 2024 growing season.  [To read more about this decision and existing stock order, click here.] Bayer, Syngenta, and BASF have applied to EPA for new registrations for their dicamba products to overcome the faults identified in the district court decision, but the EPA has not yet approved these registrations and, as such, their availability for the 2025 growing season seems extremely unlikely.

Corporate Transparency Act requires beneficial ownership reporting; nationwide injunction puts that on hold.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a federal law requiring entities created by filing documents with the secretary of state to file a “beneficial ownership interest” report providing information about the entity and its beneficial owners, defined as individuals with significant control over the entity and/or owners holding 25% or more of the interest in the entity. The CTA would have required such entities as LLCs, corporations and limited partnerships created prior to 2024 to register by December 31, 2024. To learn more about the CTA, click here for a prior blog post and here for a podcast episode with Amber Miller and Ashley Pirtle. However, on December 3^rd, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide stay of the rule in Texas Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland. Thus, registrations are suspended for now pending the further litigation of that case.

New Electronic Identification Rule Goes Into Effect.

The USDA finalized a new rule requiring certain cattle and bison crossing state lines to have electronic identification tags.  The rule, which went into effect on November 5, 2024, applies to all sexually intact cattle and bison over 18 months of age, all dairy cattle of any age, and all cattle or bison of any age used in rodeos, exhibitions or recreational events.  Livestock tagged prior to November 5, 2024 without an electronic tag will not have to be re-tagged and, instead, their non-electronic tags will be considered valid for the lifetime of the animal.  The electronic tags will be provided at no cost to producers through their State Veterinarian’s Office.  There have been some reports of a shortage of tags in certain western states.  On October 30^th, a new lawsuit was filed challenging the regulation and seeking an injunction, but no action been taken at this time.  To hear more about the electronic identification rule, click here for a podcast episode I did with Chelsea Good.

Court Issues Injunction on ERP Payment Method.

In June, a federal judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction in Strickland v. USDA prohibiting the USDA from continuing to make payments for the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) 2022 using a formula that increased benefits for “socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.”   ERP is a program offering financial assistance for producers impacted by wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, winter storms, and other eligible disasters.  The court found this calculation approach was arbitrary and capricious ordered the USDA to stop making payments in this matter during the continuation of the litigation.  [To read more about the court’s decision, click here.]  The lawsuit remains pending.  In August, the UDSA announced that it would continue issuing ERP 2022 payments, but that it would do so without factoring in the “socially disadvantaged” category per the court’s order.

Beef-related lawsuits filed.

There have been a couple of major beef-related lawsuits filed this year.  In September,  the Environmental Working Group filed suit against Tyson Foods seeking an injunction to stop Tyson’s claims related to their climate-smart beef program.  The plaintiffs claim these statements are false and misleading to consumers.  In October, McDonalds sued the “Big 4” packers (Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef) alleging that the companies conspired to inflate beef prices from 2015 to the present.

As this list makes clear, there was no shortage of agricultural law news in 2024, and it certainly seems we have a lot to watch as we head into 2025.