Charter vs. USDA

Judge Allows Ranchers to Intervene in Beef Checkoff Lawsuit

INDIVIDUAL INTERVENORS

Billings US District court Judge Richard Cebull has granted permission to 119 cattle producers to intervene as co-plaintiffs alongside Montana ranchers Steve and Jeanne Charter. The intervenors will be entitled to the same remedies and relief Judge Cebull grants the Charter Family.

GROUP INTERVENORS

Nine family farm groups-including Northern Plains Resource Council, which coordinated the joint intervention-and a dozen former producers, had also requested permission to intervene. Cebull denied these requests on the grounds that the 119 individual intervenors adequately represent the associations’ interests, and that adding additional parties would only slow proceedings.

CHARTER V. USDA

The original Charter vs. USDA lawsuit, filed last August, requests the Court to strike down the mandatory beef checkoff as unconstitutional. The suit also asks the Court to issue an injunction to freeze all expenditures of current checkoff funds until the case is resolved; to establish an escrow account into which cattlemen may pay future checkoff assessment until the case re resolved; and to order refunds of all fees paid into the program by the parties to the lawsuit-including the 110 intervenors-since it became mandatory if the Beef Checkoff is ultimately struck down.

ESCROW ACCOUNT

Custer, Montana rancher Bill Mackay Jr.,

Chair of the Northern Plains Beef Checkoff

Legal Defense Fund, Explained the need for an escrow and injunction: “The beef checkoff collects close to $2 million in assessments every week. As long as they can continue to collect and spend our money, those who benefit from the checkoff have every incentive to drag the court battle out as long as possible. All of us intervenors collectively are compelled to pay over $220,000 per year into the NCBA-run checkoff program. We should be free to redirect those funds to efforts that benefit independent American cattle producers, not be forced to finance promotions and studies that support the global trade agendas of big feeders, packers and processors.

OPPOSITION ARGUMENT

The government legal briefs include new arguments that the beef checkoff is not a collective industry-run program, but rather “government speech” and exempt from First Amendment authority. The lawyers for our side have countered that one of the original motives for adopting Constitutional guarantees of free speech and association was specifically to prevent powerful government agencies such as USDA from manipulating the public debate to the side it favors.

COURT HEATING DATE

The Court Hearing date for Charter vs. USDA is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., April 16, 2002, in Billings.

INTERVENOR MEETINGS

Several intervenors plan to hold local meetings in the next few months to discuss implications of Charter vs. USDA for independent cattlemen, the competition title of the Farm Bill, and global trade expansion proposals. If you would be willing to help host such a meeting in your community, or if you have any questions, please contact NPRC staff Dennis Olson by phone at 406-248-1154 or by email at dennis.olson@nprcmt.org.