Amicus Curiae Brief — Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Lyng

IN THE ib

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

OCTOBER TERM 1985

The STATE OF IOWA, ex rel.

THOMAS J. MILLER,

Attorney General of Iowa,

and

DANNY GETTLER, et al.,

Petitioners,

. vs.

JOHN BLOCK, Secretary of the

United States Department of Agriculture,

in his official capacity, and

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondents.

BRIEF OF THE STATES OF MINNESOTA,

ILLINOIS, KANSAS, NORTH DAKOTA AND

WISCONSIN IN SUPPORT OF THE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Of Counsel: HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III

NEIL F. HARTIGAN Attorney General

Attorney General State of Minnesota

State of Illinois CATHARINE F. HAUKEDAHL

ROBERT T. STEPHAN Special Assistant

Attorney General Attorney General

State of Kansas Counsel of Record

NICHOLAS SPAETH 515 Transportation Building

Attorney General Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

State of North Dakota Telephone: (612) 296-6839

BRONSON C. LAFOLLETTE Of Counsel:

Attorney General JEAN BOLER

State of Wisconsin

ES | Le eT

224-7651 — Review Publishing Co., 287 E. 6th St., St. Paul, Minn. 55101 — 224-7631

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Authorities .... Ua ETA ERNST ii

Statement of Interest septa eticnus kui hce ain te 1

a ee a 3

pou 4... ..... A ede ahr be [2 er eg 3

I. A State Which Can Demonstrate A Quasi-Sov-

ereign Interest Has Standing As Parens Patriae

To Sue The Federal Government To Enforce A

Congressional Mandate .. Oe, Oe eee es 3

SSE DOSE OPER ITO LE COUT RTO ee 7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Federal Decisiens:

Alabama v. Tennessee Valley Authority,

467 F.Supp. 791 (N.D. Ala. 1979), rev’d on

other grounds, 636 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 454 U.S. 837 (1981) es 6

Carey v. Klutznick,

637 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1980) 5

City of New York v. Heckler, 578 F. Supp. 1109

(E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 742 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1984),

cert. granted, 106 S. Ct. 57 (1985) 5

Florida v. Weinberger,

492 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1974) 5

Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad,

324 U.S. 439 (1945) 5

Louisiana v. Lee, 596 F. Supp. 645 (E.D. La. 1984),

vacated on other grounds, 758 F.2d 1081 (5th

Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106 S. Ct. 1259 (1986) 5

Massachusetts v. Mellon,

262 U.S. 447 (1923) } 2... passim

Snapp v. Puerto Rico,

458 U.S. 592 (1982) passim

Washington Utilities & Transp. Comm. v. FCC,

513 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

423 U.S. 836 (1975) 5

ii

Page

Miscellaneous:

Comment, “State Standing to Challenge Federal

Administrative Action: A Re-examination of the

Parens Patriae Doctrine,” 125 U. Pa. L. Rev.

1060 (1977) . 6

Comment, “Federal Jurisdiction: State Parens

Patriae Standing In Suits Against Federal

Agencies,” 61 Minn. L. Rev. 691, 703 (1977) 6

ili

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

No.

OCTOBER TERM 1985

The STATE OF IOWA, ex rel.

THOMAS J. MILLER,

Attorney General of Iowa,

and

DANNY GETTLER, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

JOHN BLOCK, Secretary of the

United States Department of Agriculture,

in his official capacity, and

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondents.

BRIEF OF THE STATES OF MINNESOTA;

ILLINOIS, KANSAS, NORTH DAKOTA AND

WISCONSIN IN SUPPORT OF THE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The amici states through their attorneys general respect-

fully offer this brief in support of the petitioners. This case

raises issues of considerable public importance, the resolution

of which will directly impact the amici.

Amici are midwestern states whose economies depend large-

ly on agricultural production. Farming and farm-related in-

dustries constitute approximately 25 percent of Minnesota’s

economic base, and 19 percent of Minnesota’s jobs are directly

or indirectly related to farming. Interview with Professor

Wilbur R. Maki, Agriculture and Applied Economics, Univer-

sity of Minnesota (May 2, 1986). Similarly, in Wisconsin,

approximately 26 percent of the value of the State’s manu-

facturing is attributable to agriculture and related business,

and 22 percent of the state’s jobs are agriculturally related.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture (April 1986) (unpub-

lished).

Because agriculture is vital to the amici, federal agricul-

tural policies and programs have a profound effect on them.

This is particularly true now, when the midwestern agricul-

tural economy is in a crisis condition. See generally U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Financial Conditions of Farmers

and Farm Lenders (March 1985); Harl, “The Architecture

of Public Policy: The Crisis in Agriculture,” presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Law Associa-

tion (October 3, 1985). For example, in 1984, Minnesota’s

farm equity dropped $8.091 billion, a decline of 22.4 percent.

Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service (November 1985)

(unpublished). From June 1, 1984, through June 1, 1985,

Minnesota led the nation in the number of farmers lost, as

the number of Minnesota farms fell from 101,000 to 96,000.

Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service, AGRI-VIEW, Issue

AV-i6-85 (Aug. 13, 1985). The 150-page, $16 million farm

bill passed by the 1986 Minnesota ! egislature is further testi-

mony to the severity of the state’s farm crisis.

Under these circumstances, amici have a vital interest in

insuring that the Secretary of Agriculture implements farm

programs in a manner consistent with Congressional intent.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has interfered with this

|

3

interest by holding that states have no standing to sue the

federal government as parens patriae. Because the decision

of the Court cf Appeals severely limits the ability of the

states to protect the economic well-being of their citizens,

amici submit this brief in support of the State of Iowa’s

petition for a writ of certiorari.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Court should explicitly recognize that the states have

standing as parens patriae to sue the federal government to

enforce a Congressional mandate. The Eighth Circuit Court

of Appeals has misinterpreted this Court’s precedent as

establishing an absolute bar to a state’s parens patriae action

against the federal government and is in conflict with the de-

cisions of several other circuits. The precedent relied upon by

the Eighth Circuit should be narrowly construed to prohibit,

at most, state parens patriae actions brought under the Court’s

original jurisdiction challenging federal statutes as uncon-

stitutional.

ARGUMENT

I. A STATE WHICH CAN DEMONSTRATE A QUASI-

SOVEREIGN INTEREST HAS STANDING AS PARENS

PATRIAE TO SUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO

ENFORCE A CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE.

The Eighth Circuit has misinterpreted this Court’s prece-

dent as establishing an absolute bar to a state’s parens pairiae

action against a federal agency. In holding that the State of

Iowa lacked standing to sue the U.S. Department of Agri-

culture, the Eighth Circuit relied on this Court’s decision in

4

Snapp v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982). In Snapp, Puerto

Rico brought a parens patriae action against private individ-

uals and companies, alleging violations uf federal law. This

Court heid that if a state establishes a quasi-sovereign inier-

est, it can bring such an action. /d. at 607. However, in a

footnote that is clearly dicta, the Court also stated that: “A

state does not have standing as parens patriae to bring an

action against the federal government.” Jd. at 610 n.16. In

support of this position the Court cited Massachusetts v.

Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923).

It is true that the Snapp footnote relied upon by the Eighth

Circuit sweeps broadly and might appear to prohibit any

parens patriae action against the federal government. How-

ever, the language quoted above should be narrowly construed

when considered in light of the holding in Massachusetts v.

“Yellon and the continuing evolution of federal-state relations.

In Mellon, Massachusetts attempted, as parens patriae, to

have the federal Maternity Act declared unconstitutional as

outside the scope of Congressional power. This Court held

that a state could not bring a parens patriae action within the

original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike down a

federal statute as unconstitutional. The Court held that a

state, as parens patriae, could not “institute judicial proceed-

ings to protect citizens of the United States from the opera-

tions of the statutes thereof.” 262 U.S. at 485. Thus, Mellon

holds only that a state may not stand between its citizens and

the affirmative operation of federal law. It does not hold that

a state lacks standing to force a federal agency to comply

with its statutory mandate, and it should not be so extended.

Several Circuit Courts of Appea! have refused to extend

Mellon and have recognized parens patriae standing when a

state sues on behalf of its citizens to enforce a Congressional

5

mandate. These decisions are in clear conflict with the Eighth

Circuit’s holding in the instant matter. In Washington Util-

ities & Transp. Comm. v. FCC, 518 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1975), the state regulatory agency and

association of regulatory utility commissioners sought review

of an order of the FCC. The Ninth Circuit found the Mellon

doctrine inapplicable, noting that “Massachusetts sought to

litigate a ‘question of distribution of powers between the

State and the national government’... .”” Jd. at 1158, quoting

Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railicad, 324 U.S. 489, 445 (1945).

In contrast, Washington sought “to vindicate the congres-

sional will by preventing what it [asserted] to be a violation

of that statute by the administrative agency charged with

its enforcement.” Jd. Because of this distinction, the Ninth

Circuit found that the state had standing to sue. See also

Carey v. Klutznick, 687 F.2d 834, 838 (2d Cir. 1980) (New

York had parens patriae standing to sue the Census Bureau

for undercounting New York residents); Floride v. Wein-

berger, 492 F.2d 488, 493-94 (5th Cir. 1974) (state had stand-

ing to challenge the validity of an HEW regulation).

A growing number of district courts have relied on the

Washington Utilities rationale. These cases correctly adopt a

narrow construction of Mellon which permits a state to sue

as parens patriae to enforce the affirmative obligation of a

federal agency. E.g., City of New York v. Heckler, 578

F. Supp. 1109 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 742 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1984),

cert. granted, 106 S. Ct. 57 (1985) (state challenged proce-

dures used in dispensing social security disability and supple-

mental security income benefits); Louisiana v. Lee, 596

F.Supp 645 (E.D.La. 1984), vacated on other grounds, 758

F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1259 (1986)

(state sued the Army Corps of Engineers alleging the Corps

6

violated the National Environmental Policy Act); Alabama

v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 467 F.Supp. 791 (N.D. Ala.

1979), rev'd on other grounds, 636 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir),

cert. denied, 454 U.S. 837 (1981) (Alabama had standing as

parens patriae to seek a declaratory judgment against the

TVA).

A second ground for limiting Melion is also articulated in

some of these cases. In Mellon, Massachusetts had invoked the

Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. The Court’s concern

for its own caseload may therefore have been a determining

factor in its holding. As this Court has noted, special consid-

erations may call for limited exercise of the Court’s original

jurisdiction which do not apply when a state brings a parens

patriae action in federal district court. Snapp v. Puerto Rico,

458 U.S. at 603 n.12. See also 458 U.S. at 610 (Brennan, J.,

concurring).

Finally, a broad reading of Mellon ignores the dramatic

changes in federal-state relations which have taken place in

the 63 years since Mellon was decided. The federalism Mellon

sought to protect, “the administrative dualism .. . in which

state and federal governments operate in relative auton-

omy,” is extinct. Comment, “State Standing to Challenge

Federal Administrative Action: A Reexamination of the

Parens Patriae Doctrine’, 125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1069, 1087

(1977). Moreover, a state’s suit against a federal agency is no

more disruptive to the operations of that agency than a suit

by a private party. Comment, “Federal Jurisdiction: State

Parens Patriae Standing in Suits Against Federal Agencies,”

61 Minn. L. Rev. 691, 703 (1977). Mellon should be read to

accommodute the modern, cooperative nature of state-federal

relations, especially when a state is not challenging a Con-

gressional mandate but is atteinpting to enforce it.

7

CONCLUSION

The Court should grant certiorari in this case to clarify

the exact parameters of Mellon and whether the dicta in

Snapp relied upon by the Eighth Circuit is this Court’s defini-

tive holding on parens patriae standing. The amici states

urge the Court to grant certiorari for the reasons stated

above and the reasons contained in the petition for writ of

certiorari filed by the State of Iowa.

Dated: May 7, 1986.

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel: HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III

NEIL F. HARTIGAN Attorney General

Attorney General State of Minnesota

State of Illinois CATHARINE F. HAUKEDAHL

ROBERT T. STEPHAN Special Assistant

Attorney General Attorney General

State of Kansas Counsel of Record

NICHOLAS SPAETH 515 Transportation Building

Attorney General Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

State of North Dakota Telephone: (612) 296-6839

BRONSON C. LAFOLLETTE Of Counsel:

Attorney General JEAN BOLER

State of Kansas Attorneys for the

State of Minnesota