Lawsuit

Florida Successfully Defends Lab-Grown Meat Ban in Court

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:43:12 GMT

A federal appeals court ruled that Florida, the first state to ban lab-grown meat, can continue to enforce state law SB 1084, keeping the state’s restrictions fully in place.

The March 23 ruling from a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban does not conflict with federal regulations.

Upside Foods, a California company that was approved to make cultivated chicken for U.S. sale in 2022, brought the case forward. The company argued that federal oversight should override Florida’s restrictions, but the court disagreed.

“Because Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat does not regulate Upside’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations, federal law does not preempt SB 1084,” wrote Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher, as reported by the Florida Phoenix .

SB 1084, which took effect in July 2024, bans the manufacture, sale and distribution of cultivated meat. Six other states — Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska and Texas — have enacted similar bans since Florida took action.

Florida leaders who backed the ban celebrated the ruling. CBS 12 reports that Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson said it protects traditional farmers and argued that lab-grown meat isn’t proven safe. Gov. Ron DeSantis also praised the decision, saying lab-grown meat won’t be allowed in Florida.

Cultivated meat supporters say these bans block a growing industry, eliminate future jobs, and shut down marketplace competition before the products can gain a foothold, CBS 12 reports.

Signed by DeSantis in 2024 to support traditional agriculture, the state law makes violations punishable by up to 60 days in jail.

“Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere,” DeSantis said in Food Safety News in 2024. “We are not doing that in the State of Florida.”

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

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:25:52 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

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

Tue, 24 Sep 2024 02:53:00 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

Top 5 Most Notorious Cattle Business Crimes Of 2023

Thu, 28 Dec 2023 16:30:33 GMT

There may not be shootouts on Main Street anymore, but Wild West-type scandals are alive and well across the cattle industry.

In 2023 alone, there was a number of instances of theft, fraud and cattle ponzi schemes.

Here’s a look at the top 5 from this year:

Three Florida Men Sentenced in $9-Million Frozen Meat Crime Ring

Arrested for approximately 45 thefts totaling over $9 million in loss, three Florida men were sentenced for stealing semi-loads of frozen beef and pork from packing plants across six Midwest states.

Read the full story here.

Arizona Border Rancher Accused of Killing Migrant, Now Held With $1 Million Bond

An Arizona rancher was arrested in connection with the death of a Mexican national who was shot and killed on the rancher’s property, literally yards north of the Mexican border.

Read the full story here.

Iowa Cattleman Faces 30 Years for Fraud, Theft

A Clayton County, Iowa, cattleman plead guilty Dec. 1 in Cedar Rapids federal court to livestock theft, wire fraud and one count of making a false bankruptcy declaration. The cattleman admitted he operated a large farming operation in Northeastern Iowa and operated an unlicensed custom cattle farm known as “Fawn Hollow.”

Read the full story here.

Texas-Based Cattle Company Accused of $191 Million Investment Fraud

Agridime LLC, Texas-based cattle company, is facing allegations of orchestrating a cattle Ponzi scheme involving $191 million in investor funds and undisclosed sales commissions. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took swift action, issuing a temporary restraining order, asset freeze and receiver appointment for Agridime on Dec. 14.

Read the full story here.

Kentucky Cattle Scheme With 78,000 Ghost Cattle Unravels

A massive fraudulent cattle scheme allegedly orchestrated by a Kentucky cattleman conned dozens of investors and a prominent agricultural lender out of $100 million, while his family – still grieving over the man’s suicide – faces financial peril.

Read the full story here.

While some of these stories seem a little too wild to be true, considering the prices of cattle and beef in the last year, there’s more reason to believe that these events occur.

Cattle rustling is still a concern, according to state brand inspection and livestock boards across the Midwest.

Read the full story: Cattle Rustlers Target Valuable Livestock: Are You At Risk?

Read More:

2023 Year in Review

Gov. Polis Releases Wolves in Covert Ceremony

Attorneys Challenge Court Decision Dismissing Tyson Workers' COVID-19 Lawsuits

Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:54:52 GMT

Representing the estates of Tyson workers who succumbed to COVID-19 complications during the 2020 pandemic, attorneys are urging a reevaluation of a court decision that dismissed their legal actions, according to a local news source .

Judge John Sullivan ruled in October of this year that the lawsuits, brought by representatives of Kabeya “Axel” Mukendi and Felicie Joseph, lacked jurisdiction in civil court. This ruling emphasized that workplace injuries fall under the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation system, not the judiciary.

Sullivan’s decision followed precedent of a January 2023 ruling in suits brought by representatives of Isidro Fernandez, Sedika Buljic, Reberiano Leno Garcia, and Jose Luis Ayala Jr. The court found these suits failed to establish claims of wanton neglect necessary for jurisdiction.

The news source notes Sullivan’s words in his ruling: “While the court recognizes the tragic circumstances that arose from the situation, the law requires that plaintiffs’ claims proceed under the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation pursuant to the IWCA. This Court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claims.”

The opinion further states, “The court does not find that the plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts as to each individual defendant that rise to the level of gross negligence amounting to wanton neglect that would remove these matters from the jurisdiction of the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation.”

According to records, workers’ compensation claims, which provide limited opportunities for damages, have been filed.

Attorneys John Rausch, Thomas Frerichs, and Mel Orchard III, handling the Mukendi and Joseph cases, have reportedly requested the district to reconsider the ruling in papers filed earlier this month. However, the news source indicates that a previous challenge by attorneys in other suits was defeated in district court.

The lawsuits allege that Tyson officials misled employees at Tyson Fresh Meats in the spring of 2020 about the dangers of the coronavirus and the virus’s presence at the hog-processing facility.

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.”

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

Nelson To Serve Life in Prison for Diemel Murders

Mon, 03 Oct 2022 17:02:38 GMT

A northwest Missouri man will serve two consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole after he pleaded guilty Friday to the 2019 murders of two Shawano County, Wisconsin, brothers.

Garland Nelson, 28, Braymer, MO, admitted to shooting Nicholas Diemel, 35, and Justin Diemel, 24, burning their bodies and hiding their remains, according to the Caldwell County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

In exchange for his plea, charges of abandonment of a corpse, tampering with physical evidence, armed criminal action and tampering with a motor vehicle were dropped, the St. Joseph News-Press reported. One of Nelson’s defense attorneys said two years ago the state planned to seek the death penalty if his client was convicted of the killings.

“We are glad this matter has now been resolved. We are now assured that the person responsible for this heinous crime will never be out of prison,” Caldwell County Prosecuting Attorney Brady Kopek, who represented the state of Missouri in the case, said in a statement.

Prosecutors said Nelson had entered a business arrangement with Diemel Livestock of which Nick and Justin were principals. Nelson agreed to feed and pasture cattle and sell them on the Missouri farm owned by his mother. Nelson agreed to send the proceeds to Diemel’s Livestock.

The Diemels shipped several loads of cattle to Nelson between November 2018 and April 2019, and he allegedly sold, traded or killed the cattle without sending payment to the Diemel brothers. Prosecutors said Nelson “continued to fraudulently bill the Diemels for feed and yardage for cattle that had been sold, traded or had died.”

The indictment said Nelson “did not properly care for cattle due to incompetence, neglect, or maltreatment. Cattle entrusted to Nelson had high death rates dues to underfeeding, neglect, and/or maltreatment. Nelson fed cattle inadequately and poorly,” reads a statement from the prosecutor’s office. “For example, he dropped hay bales in a pasture for calves but did not remove the plastic covering so that calves ate the plastic and died. In another example, in December 2018, Nelson was entrusted with feeding and caring for 131 calves he co-owned with a Kansas farmer. On May 23, 2019, Nelson dropped off 35 calves at the co-owner’s farm in Kansas, apparently all that survived of the 131. Of the surviving 35 calves, many were emaciated and had ringworm. Some calves had their ears torn as though identifying ear tags had been removed.”

Nick Diemel continued to press Nelson for payment and sent no more cattle to him. The indictment states Nelson sent the Diemels a $215,936 bad check. His account had a balance of 21 cents at the time. Prosecutors say the check had been intentionally torn so it could not be cashed.

In an attempt to collect on the debt, the Diemel brothers traveled to Nelson’s farm near Braymer, Missouri, on July 21,2019. They were never seen again. When the brothers missed their flight back to Wisconsin their family reported them missing.

Prosecutors said Nelson shot the brothers and drove their pickup truck off of his farm. He told authorities he put the men’s bodies in 55-gallon barrels and burned them. Nelson told investigators he dumped the remains on a manure pile and hid the barrels on the property, about 70 miles northeast of Kansas City, Missouri.

The remains were later found in Missouri and in a livestock trailer in Lincoln County, Nebraska, that had been purchased in Missouri.

In 2020, the families of the victims reached a $2 million settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Nelson, his mother, Tomme Feil, and the family’s cattle business, J4S Enterprises.

At the time of the brothers’ deaths, Nelson was on parole after serving 17 months in federal prison for an October 2016 conviction for cattle and insurance fraud. Prosecutors said he sold more than 600 head of cattle that did not belong to him, causing more than $262,000 in losses.

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

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.