Lawsuit

Deere & Co. Reaches $99 Million Settlement in Multiyear ‘Right-to-Repair’ Litigation

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:46:07 GMT

On April 6, Deere & Co. announced a settlement agreement resolving the “right-to-repair” litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The company will pay $99 million (plus interest accruing since Jan. 15) into a settlement fund for the benefit of the settlement class. In a press release , the company states the agreement brings the case to a close with “no finding of wrongdoing.”

The agreement marks a pivotal moment in the multi-year legal battle, aiming to compensate producers for repair restrictions while avoiding a formal admission of liability. While Deere marks the move as a step toward better customer support, the settlement fuels a debate with advocates who argue the payout fails to address control over farm machinery repairs.

Under the terms of the settlement, Deere will establish a fund to cover administrative and legal fees, with the remainder distributed to eligible class members. Deere says it remains committed to supporting customers with access to manuals, diagnostic software and specialized tools.

“As we continue to innovate industry-leading equipment and technology solutions supported by our world-class dealer network, we are equally committed to providing customers and other service providers with access to repair resources,” says Denver Caldwell, vice president, aftermarket & customer support. “We’re pleased that this resolution allows us to move forward and remain focused on what matters most – serving our customers.”

Industry Advocates Raise Questions Amid Settlement Announcement

Despite the settlement, some are still skeptical.

“I suspect there is a lot less to this deal than meets the eye,” says Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the Repair Association .

She has questions, including: In the settlement, Deere agreed to make available to farmers for 10 years “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis and repair” of large agricultural equipment, including tractors, combines and sugarcane harvesters. What does that mean for other John Deere equipment?

In response, John Deere says its latest digital self-repair tool, Operations Center PRO Service, launched in July 2025, is designed to enhance how John Deere equipment owners use, maintain, diagnose, repair and protect their equipment. The tool provides support capabilities across John Deere’s agriculture, turf, construction and forestry equipment portfolio.

Yet unknown, Gordon-Byrne says, are the outcomes of 16 right-to-repair bills that cover ag equipment filed this year in 16 states.

“Several are likely to pass with much stronger requirements,” she adds.

Meanwhile, Willie Cade, Repair Association board member and a consultant on the case since it was filed in 2022, says he believes Deere will continue to move the goalposts and keep farmers reliant on their “monopolistic” repair policy.

“It’s too little, too late, and it will not fundamentally change the monopolistic repair environment that Deere enjoys,” he says.

The settlement must still be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:24:41 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

Supreme Court Decision On Glyphosate Case Expected Next Session

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 14:00:26 GMT

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court asked for the views of the Solicitor General in the Durnell case. This comes after a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by Bayer’s indirect subsidiary Monsanto in April 2025 arguing that Roundup litigation decisions have been split by federal circuit courts and a Supreme Court decision is needed.

This news of the court’s action has Bayer expecting a decision by the Court—first if it accepts the case, then on a ruling—in the 2025-2026 session. The company says it expects the decision by the Court on whether or not to hear the case in the fall 2025. And then if picked up by the court, its decision would be announced by June 2026.

“We see this request as an encouraging step and look forward to hearing the views of the government on FIFRA’s federal preemption provision, which relies on language common to several federal laws that cover a number of industries,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson in a news release. “The security and affordability of the food supply depend on companies’ and farmers’ ability to rely on decisions made by responsible federal regulatory authorities. When courts permit companies to be punished under state law for following federal law, it makes companies like ours a prime target of the litigation industry and threatens farmers and innovations that patients and consumers need for their nutrition and health.”

In the meantime, the company says it will continue it’s “multipronged” strategy around glyphosate litigation. [Read more about that strategy here .]

To-date Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer. Bill Anderson became CEO in 2023, and one of his commitments was to get the glyphosate litigation “under control” by 2026. In total, there have been about 180,000 lawsuits brought forward, with about 65,000 cases open now. The company says it has received favorable outcomes in 17 of the last 25 trials.

The federal courts with the split decisions resulted from the 3rd, 9th and 11th circuits.

FTC vs. John Deere: Two Experts Answer Key Questions

Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:30:02 GMT

On Jan. 15, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court accusing John Deere of creating and presiding over a monopolistic and anti-competitive repair and dealer service system that puts farmers and independent repair professionals at an unfair disadvantage.

The news of this legal action has sent shock-waves through the ag equipment world. Deere has since offered an official statement condemning the action as “meritless…baseless…brazen partisanship.”

Incoming FTC chair, commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who has been appointed to head up the agency under President Trump, issued a statement that simultaneously recognizes the importance of allowing farmers to diagnose and fix their machines while indicating he disagrees with the decision to file the lawsuit. Fergusons’ statement was cosigned by fellow FTC commissioner Melissa Holyoak.

What happens next?
According to a post at FTC.gov, once the agency files a lawsuit the respondent – in this case, John Deere – has the right to contest the charges. FTC may then issue a final order, which can be appealed to the courts. The agency may also seek civil (i.e. financial) damages or request an injunction against Deere.

Plaintiff’s counsel have requested an injunction against John Deere. The lawsuit expressly asks for “a permanent injunction and other equitable relief against Deere to prevent its unlawful conduct in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act” along with several state statutes in Illinois and Minnesota.

The Interviews
Now that we’ve set the stage, here is what two experts who have paid close attention to the case have to say about it:

James Kovacs is an antitrust attorney with Shinder Cantor Lerner (SLC), a national litigation firm that specializes in antitrust law.

Q: Is what FTC is accusing Deere of difficult to prove in a court of law?

A: “This is actually a very interesting topic that has been going on now for a number of decades, called right to repair. And right to repair within the antitrust space, which is where I practice, has to do with whether or not restrictions placed by the original equipment manufacturer, in this case John Deere, and what we call an aftermarket, which are the areas in which people compete for repair or service, whether those, you know, aftermarkets are being harmed. And so looking at whether people cannot either independently repair their own equipment or whether independent retailers or repair centers are also restricted as well. With these cases, really any monopolization case is challenging, but here I will say that the practices of John Deere, I think, are quite open and notorious.

“For a long time, people have been aware that farmers have been restricted from repairing their farm equipment. There are a variety of means, most of which are sort of technical issues in which the data and information necessary to perform the repair or the tool, which I believe is called the Service Advisor, has been restricted. And so, when the farmer or the independent repair center goes to fix the John Deere equipment, they are not able to access the necessary technical information to complete the job. And now the farmer can only do those types of repairs through a John Deere retailer, an authorized retailer.

“And so, this type of conduct within the right to repair market dates back to cases in the 1990s, in particular, with Kodak printers. And it can be found to be anti-competitive, wherein there’s an entity with basically complete control over the repair market who applies these types of restrictions. So, this is not something that is uncommon. And it’s something that’s seen quite an uptick in interest since the Biden Administration made it a priority. And when the FTC issued their initial report, called Nixing The Fix, that sort of got the ball rolling on the FTC’s interest in these types of cases.”

Q: In your opinion, does FTC have a strong case here?

A: “In my experience, the FTC does not bring complaints unless they feel like there are strong grounds to do so. Again, I also think there are a couple key factors at play here. One, I think the public is becoming quite aware of John Deere’s practices. I know that there are several reports and public sources out there who have spoken about these issues and their impact on farmers and their farming equipment.

“The second aspect to keep in mind is there is also a private litigation against John Deere alleging the same practices. That case has proceeded past a motion to dismiss. And so, what that means is the allegations have been proven to be sufficient to allow the parties to proceed into discovery. And I think that gives credence to the fact these claims are not necessarily merit-less at all. But in fact, people who have been looking at these issues believe there are merits to these claims. And I think the FTC does not typically act unless they believe strongly that an issue could be problematic.”

Q: FTC, through their legal team, has requested an injunction against Deere along with their co-plaintiffs, the state attorney generals in Illinois and Minnesota. Let’s say I’m a farmer in Illinois or Minnesota, and I’m using Deere equipment. I may be looking to have some repairs made before spring planting by a John Deere dealer. Could there be implications at play for those users?

A: “I think it’s important to note that the FTC’s jurisdiction is nationwide. And so, what the FTC is seeking through its injunctive relief, as I understand it, is access to what they call the ‘full function Service Advisor (program).’ As of right now, there is sort of an incomplete Service Advisor that the independent repair pros and the farmers have access to, but that doesn’t give them the full suite of options to repair all the needs of their farming equipment. And the allegation is that John Deere has withheld some of this technical information out of a desire to sort of capture the repair market under the injunctive relief.

“As I understand it, if the FTC were to be successful in any litigation and a jury ultimately found in their favor, then ultimately the farmers would be able to get access to this full Service Advisor tool and therefore be able to complete more repairs. Whether or not John Deere comes up with additional ways of restricting repairs is going to be open to interpretation, but at least this is a very specific injunctive relief. And there’s also sort of broader language to sort of prevent them from continuing this unlawful conduct. And so, I think it could be substantial relief.”

Willie Cade is a Washington, D.C., lobbyist and Right to Repair advocate. His grandfather was on the board at John Deere and worked for the company as a chief engineer. He can be reached by email at willie@graceful.solutions .

Q: What have you learned about this legal action that sticks out to you?

A: “A couple of things really stick out in my mind. No. 1, deep into the filing, around paragraph 111, they talk about how this monopolization of repair actually affects all repairs.

“Yes, it’s not monopolization of every repair, but it affects the price of every repair, which is remarkable. And they really call it a monopoly. They’re flat out about it. I love the way they took the time – we initially filed the complaint with the FTC and I worked on that with the attorneys that filed it three years ago. So they did their homework and they’ve done a really good job. And I really recommend to the farmers who really care about this issue, that they read the complaint because it reads really well. It reads like they know the industry, like they know what they’re talking about and that kind of thing.

“The other thing that was kind of interesting is, is they have lots (of evidence). They have a number of John Deere executives on record saying that, yeah, we knew we were doing this. So, I mean, they’ve really nailed it from that point of view. And when you look at the dissenting opinion from the two Republican commissioners, it’s a non-dissent dissent. There really was no objection to the substance of the suit, just the timing.”

Q: Are you aware of any other major farm machinery companies that might be engaged in similar conduct?

A: “They’re all doing it. They all use the same similar kind of technology — the CAN bus. Caterpillar is a little different because it’s not a CAN bus, it’s a hub. But those are just technical details. They’re still wanting to, I assert, illegally control the consumer after they sell the product. That’s a legal concept called tying. And tying has been illegal for almost a century now. And the electronics allow you to do it today where you weren’t able to do it before, other than physically. So we’re going to nail this. It’s going to take a year or two and then we’re going to move on. We’re going to move on to some even more important issues in agriculture. But I won’t tell you what that is yet.”

Q: Could you see this becoming sort of a win-win situation, where the farmers win out on this and even Deere comes out of this looking somewhat okay and maybe better for the long term?

A: “Well, here’s the interesting thing. Due to the lack of rights to repair their own farm equipment, farmers stand to lose $4.2 billion a year. About 20% of that is realized in higher prices for repair and services. The rest is in lost yield. So, could you imagine if farmers could get that rough number, that $3.8 billion back or even $3.7 billion back? And it’s all profit, by the way. By the time you get the yield, it’s all profit. If they could get that as profit, of course John Deere is going to do better with sales.”

Watch this video for additional coverage from the Jan. 18, 2025, episode of U.S. Farm Report.

Your Next Read: How a Con Man Pulled the Evilest Agriculture Fraud in History

American Farm Bureau Terminates Illinois Farm Bureau's Membership, Illinois is Taking Filing a Lawsuit

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:19:38 GMT

The Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB) is no longer a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The American Farm Bureau Federation has decided to terminate the Illinois Farm Bureau’s membership, effective Dec. 20, 2024. AFBF President Zippy Duvall announced the termination, which is expected to have a significant impact on farmers in Illinois.

The IFB has filed a lawsuit against the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The lawsuit was filed in McLean County, Illinois. It claims this termination violates a 1990 settlement agreement between the two organizations, which allegedly allowed IFB to continue using the name “Illinois Farm Bureau.”

Duvall stated that the decision to vote out the Illinois Farm Bureau is related to maintaining “farmer control” of organizational decisions. The IFB argues that AFBF’s action threatens to deprive them of important membership rights and benefits, including a voice in national farm policy issues.

IFB President Brian Duncan expressed that they have “no desire to leave AFBF” and believes that AFBF is choosing to abandon more than 70,000 Illinois-based farmer members. The lawsuit seeks to halt AFBF’s decision to expel the Illinois Farm Bureau.

A letter from AFBF President Zippy Duvall to state farm bureau presidents said the action comes after a failed mediation session on Monday. The move is in retaliation for a decision by the Illinois Farm Bureau’s affiliate, Country Financial, to drop a Farm Bureau membership eligibility requirement for non-farm insurance policy holders in Illinois.

“The membership decision is expected to cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of farm bureau members, to the detriment of Illinois Farmers, Illinois County Farm Bureau organizations, IFB [Illinois Farm Bureau] and the entire Farm Bureau organization,” wrote Duvall, a third-generation dairy farmer from Georgia who has headed the AFBF since 2016.

Country Financial told customers in September it would no longer require Farm Bureau membership for nonfarm policies. Membership costs about $20 per year. AFBF receives $5 of those dues. Country Financial operates in 19 states. It is the largest farm insurer in Illinois.

The expulsion of the Illinois Farm Bureau from the national federation marks a significant change in the relationship between these agricultural organizations. The IFB has about 400,000 members. More than 70,000 are farmers, farmland owners, and agriculture industry professionals, according to the IFB website. Its farm membership comprises about 75% of all Illinois farmers.

The IFB has been operating for over 100 years. It will no longer be part of the larger national network. This separation could potentially affect various aspects of support and representation for Illinois farmers, including:

Legislative advocacy at the federal level
Access to national resources and programs
Participation in national policymaking for agriculture

Of note:

While the Illinois Farm Bureau will no longer be part of the American Farm Bureau Federation, it will continue to operate as a state-level organization.

ADM Sued for Alleged Misconduct, Lack of Safety Inspections

Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:58:25 GMT

By P.J. Huffstutter

Archer-Daniels-Midland Co intentionally failed to test and maintain safety systems on its grain equipment for years, which contributed to an explosion that immolated a worker and put him in a coma last year, according to a lawsuit filed against the company.

The explosion was part of a string of safety incidents at ADM facilities in Decatur, Illinois, site of the global grain trader’s North American headquarters.

ADM on Thursday declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The company’s shares have been under pressure this year from a global glut of grain supplies, and it is also facing U.S. government investigations related to accounting irregularities.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Macon County Circuit Court in Illinois, alleges that worker Antonio McElrath was in a Decatur facility known as the West Plant in April 2023 when a supervisor told him to shut down a grain “leg” tube that started smoking.

An explosion occurred when the tube was opened, and McElrath was standing in its direct path, according to the lawsuit.

McElrath, now 44, was in an induced coma for two to three weeks following the accident, his attorney Timothy Shay said. “He has suffered significant injuries and is still in recovery.”

Investigators with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that ADM failed to inspect or test critical safety systems in the explosion that injured McElrath and two other workers.

ADM had fire and explosion suppression systems in place to prevent problems and keep workers safe, but the systems were not working, the lawsuit alleges.

ADM’s sprawling grain and oilseed processing complex in Decatur also suffered dust explosions in 2018 and 2019, fires in 2019, and a smoldering event this summer at the West Plant, according to the lawsuit.

Separately, workers were injured from an explosion at the site’s East Plant in September 2023. And on Monday, an industrial fire broke out at ADM’s sorbitol production department of its East Plant, according to the Decatur Fire Department.

ADM has focused on safety efforts companywide, ADM spokeswoman Jackie Anderson said in an email statement late on Thursday.

At its Decatur complex over the past year, the company has hired process safety engineers and taken other steps to improve safety in its processes, among other steps, Anderson said. “We are fully committed to learning and improving when an operational event occurs so that it does not happen again.”

(Reporting by P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago; Editing by Aurora Ellis and Leslie Adler)

Unbowed: Farmer Fights County’s $120,000 Fine For Housing Worker On-Site

Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:01:06 GMT

In the annals of clashes between government control versus private property rights, Michael Ballard’s story is standalone. Ballard faces $120,000-plus in fines for allowing his farm manager to live on his California farm.

When Ballard let Marcelino Martinez, a 23-year career employee, live on-site in a trailer, Santa Clara County officials reacted with a blitz of code violations. Yet, those same officials permit thousands of homeless to reside in tents, shanties, and RVs across the county without penalty.

Bottom line, according to the county: If Martinez lives homeless on the streets and commutes to work on the farm, no problem. However, if he resides on the farm in a trailer—even out of site from public roads and neighboring properties—the action is illegal and deserves draconian fines.

Ballard is unbowed, represented by Institute for Justice: “Our city roads and cul-de-sacs have rows and rows of homeless camped on public property and that’s just fine with the county—no repercussions for anyone. However, I’m being prosecuted because my vineyard manager and his family live on my private property.”

“I’m fighting the county and I’ll never listen to power-crazy bureaucrats that tell me I have to kick a family off our place,” Ballard adds. “Never. I want the public to know the shocking details and see extreme injustice by our own government.”

Soapbox Love

In 1996, Michael and Kellie Ballard bought Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards in east-central California outside Saratoga—60 acres of exquisite beauty overlooking redwoods and rolling hills.

The surrounding Saratoga community, tucked beside Silicon Valley, consistently ranks at the top of per capita income and home value in the United States. Big-name tech entrepreneurs reside in Saratoga and want their homes cleaned, lawns mowed, and tables waited—creating a massive housing crisis.

“Michael Ballard used his own land to solve a problem for a friend and farmworker in a county with arguably the most severe housing crisis in the country, and the government cracked down,” says IJ attorney Paul Avelar adds. “That is madness.”

(Photo by IJ)

“The labor-based population cannot afford a place to stay,” Ballard explains. “It’s not a secret. Most people cannot find a house or apartment to rent.”

Additionally, beneath the affluence of the region, a Santa Clara County-wide homeless debacle has developed. “People want to pretend this problem is something other than what it is,” Ballard explains. “You’re not even supposed to say ‘homeless’ anymore, because it’s supposedly disrespectful to the homeless. Everyone loves the soapbox, but when visitors from out-of-state see the homeless on our streets, they can’t comprehend what’s happened.”

Since 2013, Marcelino Martinez, Ballard’s vineyard manager and long-time employee, has lived at Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards in a 42’ trailer with water, electricity, and septic hookups, alongside his wife and three children.

“The Martinez family is also our family. They could not find housing and we wanted to help,” says Ballard. “The trailer sits by itself in a redwood grove down a hill from our winery and can’t even be seen from most spots on our property. Literally, it bothers no one.”

In September 2017, Santa Clara County got an anonymous call about sewage dumped in a creek on the Ballard’s operation. County inspectors visited Ballard’s land and found the charges were fabricated.

However, while on the vineyard property, inspectors spotted Martinez’s trailer.

“They saw the trailer and said, ‘What is that? No one’s allowed to live in an RV trailer in the county.’”

A bureaucratic nightmare began.

Bullfrogs and Shotguns

Ten days later, a notice from the county arrived in Ballard’s mailbox, demanding removal of Martinez’s trailer within two weeks, and declaring the structure a “public nuisance.”

The irony was stark: If Martinez and family slept on county streets—no fines and no foul. However, if Martinez dared to sleep in a trailer at the farm of his employment—instant county rebuke.

“Ludicrous,” Ballard says. “We’re on 60 acres of private property, bothering nobody, and the trailer is not even visible to the public. The man who lives inside works in our vines and is integral to all the physical parts of our operation. Yet, the county was ordering me to throw him and his family off our property. Homeless is just fine with the county; a trailer in Saratoga is not.”

(Santa Clara County declined Farm Journal interview requests regarding Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards.)

Marcelino Martinez, farm manager and 23-year veteran at Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards.

(Photo by IJ)

In 2019, county officials levied $1,000-per-day fines on Ballard: Remove the trailer or fork over $365,000 every year. “Hell no,” he says. “I wasn’t going to make a family homeless.”

Ballard sought a solution via a prefab dwelling for the Martinez family. Best laid plans. Building any structure—even an 850 sq. ft. home—was a bureaucratic maze filled with exorbitant expense.

“We looked into developing a parcel, knowing the county might approve and might not; knowing it would take a couple years; and knowing it would total maybe $100,000-plus just for the pre-permit application process.”

Convoluted, complicated, and costly, and toe-tagged with a laundry list of checkoffs, Ballard notes. “It took us one year to complete the geological studies and road composition, have a septic system designed, retest an existing well, and get electricity and a fire hydrant approved.”

“Meanwhile, as we’re spending all this money, county officials said we were taking too long,” Ballard says. “After that, we assembled enough of the preliminary engineering work to put in our first application. Several months later, the county countered with another laundry list of things to do.”

And then COVID hit. By law, Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards was shuttered for two years.

Following COVID in 2023, Ballard’s property was hit by a catastrophic landslide that closed the winery for a full four months. “And next it was flooding in 2023-24 that closed us for five months,” Ballard adds. “One thing after another, and the whole time, the government is telling us we’re taking too long to follow their endless list of building requirements—all to house a family on our private land.”

The fines, although reduced to $250, and later $100 per day, kept stacking, tightening the pressure on Ballard and Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards .

The county was hunting a bullfrog with a shotgun, Ballard contends: “Look at the power of the bureaucracy over our lives at the local and national levels. Rules are necessary, but these agencies and institutions keep regulating to justify their expansion and existence. They always grow and never shrink. The end result is a loss of reason by the government and a loss of liberty for the citizen.”

Individual Liberty

In 2024, attorney Paul Avelar and Institute for Justice stepped into the fray and took over Ballard’s appeal for relief.

“This injustice is absolutely bewildering to the public,” Avelar describes. “The county tells Michael Ballard, a landowner and business owner, to kick a family—bothering no one and working hard—to the street or get fined $100 or even $1,000 per day. Then Michael is required to endure a permitting process that drags for years and costs at least tens of thousands of dollars before building even begins. It’s hard for people to believe.”

The fines imposed by the county, since dropped to $100 per day, but totaling over $120,000, are a massively outsized penalty for a minor violation, and a breach of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, Avelar insists. “A daily accruing fine means that every day is a new harm to the Ballards. The Institute for Justice has taken over the Ballard’s appeal to assert the Eighth Amendment, as well as due process, and we believe no fine is appropriate.”

“Michael Ballard used his own land to solve a problem for a friend and farmworker in a county with arguably the most severe housing crisis in the country, and the government cracked down,” Avelar adds. “That is madness.”

Michael and Kellie Ballard. “I’m fighting the county and I’ll never listen to power-crazy bureaucrats that tell me I have to kick a family off our place,” says Michael says.

(Photo by IJ)

Ballard is adamant: Reason will prevail. “In the United States, we don’t have a democracy ruled by the whim of the masses. Our forefathers gave us a constitutional republic steered by elected representatives of the people. That’s a very distinct difference, and crucially important because it means our elected leaders have authority, but are restricted by the Constitution, which protects individual liberty.”

“That’s what is abused in my case—individual liberty,” he adds. “And I see it abused in so many cases across this country because the government seeks more and more control of private property. It’s undeniable and getting worse with time.”

Ballard concludes with a line in the sand. “I don’t care about the fines or prosecution. I will protect the Martinez family and the county will not put them on the street.”

For more articles from Chris Bennett ( cbennett@farmjournal.com or @ChrisBennettMS
or 662-592-1106), see:
Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told
American Gothic: Farm Couple Nailed In Massive $9M Crop Insurance Fraud
Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic
Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market
Power vs. Privacy: Landowner Sues Game Wardens, Challenges Property Intrusion
Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.
Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years
While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Ag Inputs Price-Fixing Lawsuits Dismissed

Wed, 18 Sep 2024 21:09:56 GMT

On September 13, 2024 a U.S. District Judge in the eastern district of Missouri, dismissed multidistrict litigation alleging multiple agricultural input companies conspired across three distribution levels.

In short, Judge Sarah Pitlyk said the plaintiffs failed to make a case the ag input companies violated U.S. antitrust law.

This series of lawsuits brought together as a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) came after the increased availability of e-commerce platforms.

The first class action lawsuit part of this case was filed in January of 2021.

Then, farmer plaintiffs filed multiple similar cases in various courts across the U.S claiming the defendants “created a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices inflated at supracompetitive levels by denying farmers access to transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions—a scheme that is facilitated by Defendants’ boycott of electronic sales platforms, with their purportedly greater price transparency.”

In the case, e-commerce platforms named as examples include Farmer’s Business Network (FBN), FarmTrade, and Agroy, Inc.

The manufacturer defendants include Bayer CropScience LP; Bayer CropScience Inc.; BASF Corporation; Corteva Incorporated; Pioneer Hi-Bred International; and Syngenta Corporation.

The wholesaler defendants include Cargill, Incorporated; Tenkoz Incorporated; Univar Solutions, Incorporated; and Winfield Solutions, LLC (Winfield).

The retailer defendants include CHS Incorporated; Federated Co-operatives Limited; GROWMARK Inc.; Nutrien Ag Solutions, Incorporated; and Simplot AB Retail Sub Incorporated.

From the court documents released last week, the judge agreed with five reasons the defendants moved to have the CAC dismissed.

1. Plaintiffs have not pled a plausible boycott conspiracy through either direct or circumstantial evidence, and that the CAC impermissibly relies on group pleading by failing to differentiate among Defendants.

2. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Defendants caused an injury that would confer standing to pursue antitrust claims.

3. Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claim is time-barred.

4. All of Plaintiffs’ state law claims fail for the same reasons that their federal antitrust claims fail, and that certain of the state claims fail for reasons related to state law.

5. Plaintiffs’ RICO claim fails as a matter of law.

The Sherman Act and RICO claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The U.S District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

In a general summary, the judge found the claims to be generalizations.

In the past four years, both in the U.S. (for example in the cases above) and Canada, anti-trust complaints have been brought to the courts and regulatory authorities.

For example, on March 15, 2022, the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) issued a press release and position statement when it closed an investigation after determining the evidence did not demonstrate an agreement existed between competitors with respect to FBN.

NC Attorney General Urges SCOTUS to Take Up Ag-Gag Law

Tue, 15 Aug 2023 19:02:50 GMT

The North Carolina State Attorney General’s Office has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of North Carolina’s ag-gag law, twice struck down by lower courts as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

But animal activist groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and other opponents of the law told the high court the Fourth Circuit’s ruling should stand.

In 2015, North Carolina passed the Property Protection Act to prevent activists from misrepresenting themselves in order to gain access and secretly film activities in the plants. It allowed courts to assess civil penalties of $5,000 per day on employees who documented alleged wrongdoing – in video, audio, or written work – from a business’s non-public areas, and then passed that information to anyone besides the employer or law enforcement.

Two years later, a federal judge declared the law violated Constitutional provisions protecting free speech.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, along with the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in May. The state argued a Supreme Court decision is necessary to clarify the various courts’ legal interpretations, as well as the nation’s “patchwork” of similar laws. In a half-dozen other states, the courts have also struck down the laws as unconstitutional or greatly limited their scope, NC News Online reports .

Last week, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Animal Defense Fund and several other groups responded in a court filing. They argue the law unconstitutionally suppresses their right to conduct undercover animal-cruelty investigations and to publicize what they learn, Law360 reports .

The activist groups claim the law restricts employees from talking publicly about what’s happening at their workplace or in areas of their workplace that are not open to the general public. They contend that the law even tries to penalize actions like reporting problems to government agencies or speaking out about important issues in front of lawmakers.

The state argued that certain types of speech, like audio-visual recordings, should not be protected by the First Amendment in certain situations. The state also questioned whether the First Amendment should apply at all on private property, regardless of the type of speech involved.

In separate petitions for writ of certiorari, North Carolina and the Farm Bureau said the First Amendment does not protect the animal and environmental groups’ potentially illegal activities as defined by the act, Law360 reports.

“The animal groups slammed the Farm Bureau and state’s arguments. They said the state conceded audiovisual recording is typically ‘protected speech’ while at the same time arguing any such recordings should be excluded from First Amendment protection when it occurs as part of the groups’ work,” the Law360 article said.

The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation’s Secretary and General Counsel, Jake Parker, said the animal groups’ brief underscored why the Supreme Court should take the case.

“Fundamental private property rights are at stake here, and the activists misread the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases to justify blatant invasions of private businesses,” Parker said in a statement Thursday. “This case is an excellent vehicle for the court to clarify that the First Amendment does not immunize trespassing and theft.”

Read More:

Kansas’ ‘Ag-Gag’ Law Denied a Revisit by Supreme Court

“Targeted” Law in Iowa Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/110997

4 Items EPA Discussed this Week that Will Impact Producers

Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:36:19 GMT

Michael Regan, EPA administrator, appeared before the House Ag Committee on Wednesday to discuss everything from WOTUS to the farm bill. Here are the highlights that will directly impact producers:

1. Year-Round E15

EPA is not yet ready to issue an emergency declaration to allow E15 fuel to be sold during the summer months as they did in 2022. While Regan said that many of the conditions are still in place that prompted the 2022 emergency waiver, he said EPA staff has not yet brought him enough evidence to issue an emergency waiver.

He cautioned that administrative moves by the Trump administration to allow year-round E15 sales did not survive court challenges. But he said no options are off the table as of yet and that EPA was continuing to work with the Department of Energy and others on the situation.

2. Biodiesel Blending Levels

Proposed 2023, 2024 and 2025 Renewable Fuel Standard volumes for biomass-based diesel and advanced volumes do not match the industry’s current production. Regan explained:

“Let me just say that in 2022 we set the highest volumes ever in EPA’s history. So we’re proud of that and what we plan to do is continue that trajectory. As you know we proposed a rule and we’re in that proposal phase and there aren’t too many things that I can comment during this time of comment but what I can say is that 2023, 2024, and 2025 will continue that positive trajectory.”

According to Regan, his team is taking comments from industry stakeholders and have been offered “a lot” of data that Regan believes will be “reflected in the final rule.”

3. The Future of Biofuels

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), asked Regan the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. Last week, EPA announced emission standards for new cars. That announcement led to concerns from the biofuels industry and farmers in regard to the administration’s view on the role biofuels have been playing and can continue to play in reducing emissions and powering our cars and trucks.

Regan was asked what he would you say to our farmers and our domestic biofuels industry – the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. His response:

“Well, I think we see a significant role. It’s called walking and chewing gum at the same time. I think that when you look at the policies of this EPA, and the investments that we’re making in biofuels and advanced biofuels, just by the last RVO volumes we set and the ones we’re anticipating setting, and then the partnership that I have with Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Buttigieg as we look at the role of biofuels with aviation fuels, we see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complimentary to the EV fuels future. And so we think that we can do both – we see a balance here. And in both cases, we’re trying to follow the markets, follow technology, and follow the science as well.”

As for the recent EPA proposal which would tighten tailpipe emissions and force more electric vehicles (EVs) to be used, Regan said the plans do not work against biofuels. EPA is working to implement complimentary policies on that front. “We see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complementary to the EV fuels future,” he said.

4. Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule on wetlands protections and declared, “Any goodwill the administration has built with farmers and ranchers is gone.”

House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) mirrored Bacon’s comments.

“Historically, EPA has over-regulated the agriculture industry,” criticizing agency actions on pesticides, electric vehicles, and WOTUS.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on an Idaho case that would restrict federally recognized wetlands to territory with a direct surface connection to a waterway.

Regan said the EPA issued its WOTUS rule last December in the face of “looming litigation” over not having a regulation. Courts have put on hold the recent Biden/EPA rule in 26 states.

Despite “enduring” 4.5 hours in the committee hearing, Regan shows promise in working more in favor of rural America, according to Thompson. He says Regan called him following the meeting to “emphasize how much he wants to do a better job” of working with the House Ag Committee.

What’s Wrong with the Current Waters of the U.S. Rule?

Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:26:01 GMT

The latest Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) definition—put into motion by the Biden administration on March 20—was met with a wave of backlash from the ag industry for its “overreaching” jurisdiction.

That opposition was validated on Wednesday when a U.S. District Court Judge, Daniel Hovland, granted an injunction that blocks enforcement of the WOTUS rule in 24 states.

“An injunction at this early stage can avoid the massive waste of resources and delayed projects in pursuit of permits that may soon be legally irrelevant,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote in his ruling.

Related story: What Bodies of Water are Considered WOTUS?

Hovland’s decision follows a similar injunction that was filed in Texas on March 20, which effectively blocked WOTUS enforcement in Texas and Idaho. He says the EPA’s final WOTUS rule was premature, as the pending U.S. Supreme Court WOTUS case will settle the dispute in all affected states.

So, what makes EPA’s final WOTUS rule “unlawful” and worthy of an injunction? Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs at NCBA, says it comes down to bureaucracy.

What’s Wrong with WOTUS?

Under the current rule, the following bodies of water are considered WOTUS and therefore subject to federal regulation:

• Traditional navigable waters
• Tributaries that contribute perennial or intermittent flow to such waters
• Certain ditches that meet specific criteria related to flow and function
• Certain lakes and ponds
• Impoundments of otherwise jurisdictional waters
• Wetlands that are adjacent to jurisdictional waters

Lane says the EPA’s WOTUS “patchwork” in words like “certain lakes and ponds” has carved-out room for discretion. He says this discretion will rob policymakers and landowners of time and money.

“As I understand it, this rule says EPA is going to determine jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis—that just blows me away,” Lane says. “This is never the way you want a bureaucracy to interact with your private businesses.”

Richard Gupton, senior vice president of public policy and counsel at the Ag Retailers Association, echoed Lane.

“Rushing the new rule out only served to increase uncertainty for the ag retail industry while eroding [landowners] trust in the EPA’s deliberations and stakeholder consultations.”

The remedy, according to Lane, is for EPA to define exactly what the land and water “safe harbors” are and remove any room for opinion. And Lane isn’t alone in that thought.

“This isn’t just a philosophical dispute: farmers and ranchers in the remaining states are left with no clear way to determine where federal jurisdiction begins and ends on their own property,” said Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president, in a press release . “With the rule now on hold in more than half the country, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps should do the right thing by listening to our legitimate concerns and rewriting the rule to draw a bright line of jurisdiction.”

DOJ Weighs in on Right to Repair Court Case

Wed, 15 Feb 2023 17:36:47 GMT

A filing Tuesday by the Department of Justice (DOJ) urged a federal court in Illinois not to throw out a class action suit that consolidated several farmers’ lawsuits against John Deere over repair restrictions , one that the U.S. gov’t is not directly involved in at this point.

The DOJ filing said that farmers could face higher repair costs due to the restrictions on repairing their equipment and the court should reject Deere’s stance that a competitive market for tractors and other agricultural equipment equates to a competitive market for repairs.

Related article: Can You Now Repair Your Own John Deere Equipment?

The DOJ said the case is similar to a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Kodak relative to copy machines where the court ruled that Kodak restricting access to replacement parts by independent repair shops can be an antitrust violation.

The DOJ filing also said repair restrictions increase financial pressures on farmers, noting an “uptick in family farmer bankruptcies nationwide” since 2014:

“These various machines, or ‘tractors’ for short, enable American agriculture. When they break or fail to operate and repair markets function poorly, agriculture suffers. Crops waste. Land lies fallow,” the filing said.

Related article: John Phipps: In Right to Repair, Farmers May Be Watching the Wrong Battle

The DOJ filing was silent on whether they thought farmers would eventually be successful in their suit.

Deere maintains that 98% of repairs can be done without using an authorized dealership and it recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation recommitting to farmers having access to repair information and tools. Critics note remaining restrictions on what farmers and independent repair shops can and cannot repair.

Minority Farmers Sue Over Repeal of the Debt Relief Program

Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:28:28 GMT

Four minority farmers filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims over repeal via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of the minority debt relief effort for USDA borrowers previously held up in court by suits filed by white farmers who alleged discrimination since the effort was based on race, not need.

The Virginia farmers filing the suit allege repeal of the debt relief effort is a breach of contract by the government, arguing some farmers made financial plans based on the expectation of getting debt relief.

Promised Debt Relief

Reuters reported that around 14,000 farmers of color received letters from USDA in 2021 that promised debt relief of around $2.4 billion.

The initial race-based debt relief effort was contained in the American Rescue Plan but did not proceed due to court challenges. The IRA repealed that debt forgiveness effort and replaced it with one based on need.

The climate, health, and tax law earmarked $3.1 billion for “farm loan immediate relief for borrowers with at-risk agricultural operations” and $2.2 billion, to be administered by entities outside USDA, for payments of up to $500,000 each to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who had experienced discrimination in the past in USDA loan programs.

Industry Responds

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, likened the situation to the loss of assistance to Black farmers after the Civil War.

“The U.S. government must honor its commitment to us and the thousands of Black, Native American, and other farmers of color who are being forced into bankruptcy and foreclosures,” said John Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Association and one of the “class representatives” in the suit.

More on the IRA:

Will the IRA’s Biofuel Provisions Ease Pump Prices? Sen. Ernst Isn’t Convinced
What’s Ag’s Stake in the Senate-Passed Inflation Reduction Act?
IRA 2022 - What It Means For Farmers