Amicus Curiae Brief — Gale v. Jones (No. 06-1045)

MOTION FILED

MAR 1 - 2007

No. 06-1045

In the

Supreme Court of the Anited States

>

JOHN GALE, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of

Nebraska, and JON BRUNING, in his official capacity as

Attorney General of Nebraska,

Petitioners,

v.

JIM JONES; TERRENCE M. SCHUMACHER;

SHAD DAHLGREN; HAROLD G. RICKERTSEN;

TODD EITLER; and ROBERT E. BECK III,

Respondents.

e

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF

AMICI CURIAE AND BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, NATIONAL FAMILY

FARM COALITION, AND 40 OTHER

ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

(Additional Amici Listed on Inside Cover)

SUSAN E. STOKES

Counsel of Record

JESSICA A. SHOEMAKER

Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc.

360 N. Robert Street, Suite 500

St. Paul, MN 5510]

(651) 223-5400

Counsel for Amici Curiae

March 1, 2007

Re SABER APPA ERNE BOSS SRN, IME AERC ATE IOO IAAI ERY ERNIE AA Et SPEIER 8 8 Sh SR RROE NIETO 5 ER.

ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE

American Corn Growers

Association

Campaign for Family

Farms and the

Environment

Center for Rural Affairs

Federation of Southern

Cooperatives

Great Plains

Environmental Law

Center

Institute for Agriculture

and Trade Policy

Western Organization of

Resource Councils

American Corn Growers

Association of Nebraska

Arkansas Farmers Union

California Farmers Union

Citizens Action Coalition

of Indiana

Dakota Resource Council

Dakota Rural Action

Farms Without Harm

Friends of the Constitution

Illinois Farmers Union

Illinois Stewardship

Alliance

Indiana Farmers Union

lowa Farmers Union

Kansas Farmers Union

Land Stewardship Project

Michigan Farmers Union

Minnesota Farmers Union

Missouri Farmers Union

Missouri Rural Crisis

Center

Montana Farmers Union

Nebraska Environmental

Action Coalition

Nebraska Farmers Union

Nebraska Grange

Nebraska Women In Farm

Economics

North Dakota Farmers

Union

Ohio Farmers Union

Pennsylvania Farmers

Union

Powder River Basin

Resource Council

Rocky Mountain Farmers

Union

South Dakota Farmers

Union

Texas Farmers Union

Utah Farmers Union

Washington Farmers

Union

Wisconsin Farmers Union

l

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

Pursuant to Rule 37.2(b) of the Rules of this Court,

National Farmers Union, National Family Farm Coalition,

American Corn Growers Association, Campaign for Family

Farms and the Environment, Center for Rural Affairs,

Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Great Plains

Environmental Law Center, Institute for Agriculture and Trade

Policy, Western Organization of Resource Councils, American

Corn Growers Association of Nebraska, Arkansas Farmers

Union, California Farmers Union, Citizens Action Coalition of

Indiana, Dakota Resource Council, Dakota Rural Action, Farms

Without Harm, Friends of the Constitution, Illinois Farmers

Union, Illinois Stewardship Alhance, Indiana Farmers Union,

Jowa Farmers Union, Kansas Farmers Union, Land Stewardship

Project, Michigan Farmers Union, Minnesota Farmers Union,

Missouri Farmers Union, Missouri Rural Crisis Center,

Montana Farmers Union, Nebraska Environmental Action

Coalition, Nebraska Farmers Union, Nebraska Grange,

Nebraska Women In Farm Economics, North Dakota Farmers

Union, Ohio Farmers Union, Pennsylvania Farmers Union,

Powder River Basin Resource Council, Rocky Mountain

Farmers Union, South Dakota Farmers Union, Texas Farmers

Union, Utah Farmers Union, Washington Farmers Union, and

Wisconsin Farmers Union (collectively, “Amici Curiae’)

respectfully move for leave to file the accompanying brief as

Amici Curiae in support of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari

filed by Petitioners the Nebraska Secretary of State and

Attorney General. Counsel for Respondents have not consented

to the filing of this amici curiae brief, necessitating this motion.

Amici Curiae represent 42 rural and farmer-based

organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of members,

who have advocated for many years for the strengthening of

family farms and rural communities. Amici Curiae write

separately to emphasize the broad importance of this case. The

2

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Nebraska’s

constitutional amendment, known as “Initiative 300” or

“1-300,” restricting corporations from farming or having an

ownership interest in farmland. The Eighth Circuit’s decision

would leave vulnerable to dormant Commerce Clause challenge

many other important state laws regulating corporate

engagement in agriculture. Amici Curiae have worked to enact

and protect state laws like I-300 that support family farmers;

they therefore have an interest in supporting this Petition for

Wnit of Certiorari.

In light of the important issues being raised in this case,

Amici Curiae respectfully request that their Motion for Leave to

File Brief of Amici Curiae be granted.

Respectfully Submitted,

SUSAN E. STOKES

Counsel of Record

JESSICA A. SHOEMAKER

Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc.

360 N. Robert Street, Suite 500

St. Paul, MN 55101

(651) 223-5400

Counsel for Amici Curiae

March 1, 2007

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF

Se IE viinclniivntaniiimiinctniiieinieeininiabinhieanisnteries 1

Se I i cietichesinnescitiligisessencissenisenernsiuasivdios i

RE Fer FEE versennerensnrencettecnsctossacnensteveseeniin il

EE ee © OP AIT CORIAL oo sccvrncersevssreverenssvesvarssenesones 1

DE Pe SEE WE BPS EA cscs snccciccceentccrseincvservenepenveneses 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.............:ceceseeses 3

I. The Decision Below Jeopardizes Similar

State Laws Concentrated Within the

Agricultural Eighth Circuit. ......0.....ccsssesseeseseeees 4

II. State Laws Like Nebraska’s Initiative 300

Are Critically Important to Capture the

Proven Social Welfare Benefits of a Family

Farm System of Agriculture. ...............::cccseeeeeeees 11

Ill. Initiative 300 Does Not Discriminate Against

Interstate Commerce and Its Benefits Far

Outweigh Any Incidental Burden........................ 18

A. Initiative 300 Is an Evenhanded

RUNNION: icxsssctisiinicceiiceleatebimpiapcuecacitaplicapadoiacigies 18

B. The Benefits of Initiative 300 to Rural

Welfare Far Outweigh Any Incidental

and De Minimis Impact on Interstate

NIK schicuiisctotensciindihpseabiintsstskataiinisiendaneps 19

are MT cissithani tice nate aichdeiednsbaciciarnnaapuisiiidicnanedeianttineineds 20

Fe ii neiaincaptiieiiakatiileesimnaniiiiathninapiidclirananieiiostie la

il

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U.S. 207 (1945) ........... 8

CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69

Equip. Mfrs. Inst. v. Janklow, 300 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.

Me A icsncesischineanecininiivesitieiadddatcslehetiakiimibddcssiaiieinitidacabandass 9

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117

COW FAD idsnadecnipcibsindceidepungincniarshinlochentaiaitaimmnimaaeiad 9, 18-19

Hall v. Progress Pig, Inc., 610 N.W.2d 420 (Neb. 2000) ....... 9

Hampton Feed Lots v. Nixon, 249 F.3d 814 (8th Cir.

ITENE Pinssissctheacccaredninligihdasletniniahinnbiaciadibldeieimdiasndlmiaamian 8-9

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229

CUD tissntcihiincciciipcadtichaaicishdiincasllahtasihainkdinsabiisidcedssacaadictals 8

Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 2006)........... ce eceeeeeeee 3

Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933)..... 7-8, 11-12

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456

EAD sinc dinscivioindseivsendche eilsigeiescsldiinsaipipaddgnaideas ans badintanlscadai 18,19

MSM Farms, Inc. v. Spire, 927 F.2d 330

{1 eB, | ete NU RA Re nun na FCN ne mtn Sire 9, 20

New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976)...........scceseeee 8,17

Or. Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S.

FFD tikeisinssecesnsnisaaveicsadehadliddeanlerianieljudictasodaiiia 18

Pater ¥. Brown, 3U7 U.S. S41 CUGRS) ccccccsncsconsssivassessnesvsasonees 8

Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) ........eeseeeeeee 19

Santa Fe Industries v. Green, 430 U.S. 462 (1977) ..........000- 8

S.D. Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583

PE Reale PIED icsseincovssissdesiensdseatantunRladnlictcibupasiidasaismauinmeaalad 5

State ex rel. Webster v. Lehndorff Geneva, Inc., 744

an Ee IO, TI bnitcniinsscccansitinesaipasasemiaaasinee: 9

Van Kerssenbrock-Praschma v. Saunders, 121 F.3d 373

ie Re: | SER TC PEPER MIS U hy Mae eL ty at ele PUES 9

ill

Constitutional Provisions

Fi Ns Fee Det SIMs TED ccscscanctnirsiscsnninineniiaiiantitietininnt 2-3, 4

See ic PRMIINIIT, NIIGS SE UIIT Iles ction sco inicddconistebaisnstelliesonsebacotladbcalbiae 5

Statutes

ee RG) ME WPT cciichoctihcosceeculicnctnedbcdineaeceekecbubdaceimmuaasagaiias dideibiaiin 7

Be rl Fe GU ID. pike ccctprcnissccistalintacnsainiiiniassapibiiibiabiiinadiea 7

gh ST eee eer IE LEE IE ALT TE. 4

8 EL SSSR Aare ro EL ROP ny CECE SN ae A

FOWR COCO ES ZOZE. 101 60. BOG, .cnececcecceccsvoverseisovossevecnecoesecenotes 4

Ss is Ee © PES OE IIE cischenshensedivcinetenctnttatnaretanisebunianiic A

SNe ST IT biitieesinstciincrdachecedeoniieceeiotibdeabviclaartasatodedaicbaaes 4

NEO. ROV. Stat. $F SSO.O1L0 OF 9G, ..cesceccessoreesoveeseerservenceccesvervens 4

N.D. Cent. Code §§ 10-06.1-01 ef S€q..........ccsesscecsceeeeeeceeees 4-5

SPRING MEU Uk BO, SF IPE csenscecétnianesoncisbesenlntsccinsoesiesciiniaciuaphibamusieds 5

S.D. Codified Laws §§ 47-9A-1 ef SQ. ........scsscesecseecerseeresseeees 5

Ee Se cedstcsannenssnniniisncackustisiisiacdacioadlapaibiimeamanaans 5

Rules and Regulations

ae a a PG ITTIT fecnecsnishiesclnge ahasestodiasioachioscipeictaipaesaainiadtadasaaaaan 7

IL PIE TE icciincsteiscisitteentesisiepacbdicbibesiaiacnithainialasiinabeadiebbiclebanitel 7

Phot k BE. Paeenneeran aE LEM EOE EEE aE I AT 7

Pe MES A nines tecancivecatinsall eppiineiehietbaiaaeiabeadeiiamamacmtaia 7

Ee Fre citeiscbsiricecasicinaniritinncibnidiceaiistiacteaaig Unieaeeen ian 7

ee ee cicaethihestaiteientceidiaiaiicnicinieanhitaiilaciaiiam tial 7

USDA Departmental Regulation No. 9700-1 § 4(b)

(“Small Farms Policy”) (Sept. 8, 1999) 0.0... eee eeeeeeeee 7

Other Authorities

5 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 93 (Albert E.

LE OOD incntssteicpuicineniicconsinesthvadtirssiseabiachnieniaatoosan iene 6

iV

Christy Anderson Brekken, South Dakota Farm

Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine: The Eighth Circuit

Abandons Federalism, Precedent, and Family

Farmers, 22 Law & Ineq. J. 347 (2004)........... cc essseeeseeeeee 10

Osha Gray Davidson, Broken Heartland: The Rise of

America’s Rural Ghetto (1990)...........csscecssseseeceeeeees 15-16

Walter Goldschmidt, As You Sow: Three Studies in the

Social Consequences of Agribusiness (2d ed. 1978)...12, 13

John E. Ikerd, The Economic Impacts of Increased

Contract Swine Production in Missouri: Another

Viewpoint, http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/

Mark Lawrence, Studying the Impacts of Industrial

Confined Animal Feeding Operations: A Review of the

Literature, http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/

TIE I ecciisicasencsescniccitnteneimnitnsincionninasiianies 14, 15

Linda M. Lobao, Industrialized Farming and Its

Relationship to Community Well-Being: Report

Prepared for the State of South Dakota, Office of

Attorney General (Jan. 2000),

http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org/

pdfs//270_Industrialized%20Farming.pdf............. 11, 13,14

Linda M. Lobao, Locality and Inequality: Farm and

Industry Structure and Socioeconomic Conditions

SOUT caccietsiiisiasoialciadlclehemataiianideladobepteiieidlalapiatiAdanditeaswabiess 13, 20

Thomas A. Lyson & Rick Welsh, Agricultural

Industrialization, Anticorporate Farming Laws,

and Rural Community Welfare, 37 Environment

and Planning A:1479 (2005) .............:.sccccssecseseeees 13, 14,17

Roger A. McEowen & Neil E. Harl, South Dakota

Amendment E Ruled Unconstitutional—Is There a

Future for Legislative Involvement in Shaping the

Structure of Agriculture?, 37 Creighton L. Rev.

PT sincaspacinaiipiacinhidsaldshiaiaieiabamainlcpaancidaaaiaiiediand 10

v

Doug O’Brien, Policy Approaches to Address

Problems Associated with Consolidation and

Vertical Integration in Agriculture, 9 Drake J.

FI Si, GQ ectacicesieniticiasdcipniiapincacicauiinbicdiminiiaiiih 10

David J. Peters, Technical Paper P-0702-1, Revisiting

the Goldschmidt Hypothesis: The Effect of

Economic Structure on Socioeconomic Conditions

in the Rural Midwest (Mo. Econ. Research and

MT Ee, ee isi secenaiaac cece piniasiocieataiceeadiaiaabaeas 13, 14, 15

Curtis W. Stofferahn, Industrialized Farming and Its

Relationship to Community Well-Being: An Update

of a 2000 Report by Linda Lobao (Sept. 2006),

http://www.und.nodak.edu/misc/ndrural/

Lobao%20&%20Stofferahn.pdf..........sccccssssseceseseessesesereeee 13

Marty Strange, Family Farming: A New Economic

FINE CUED scccendiietsicicdadatfnienscibisesiemeapuaeishaniiibadsiaibadaie 11,12

USDA, A Time to Act: A Report of the USDA National

Commission on Small Farms (1998) ......cc:sccsscssesssseeeeeesees 16

Rick Welsh & Thomas A. Lyson, Anti-Corporate

Farming Laws, The “Goldschmidt Hypothesis” and

Rural Community Welfare, http://www.askfarmer

brown.org/welshlyson.pdf..............-.-cccccecccscsecoressonecsees 17, 20

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE'

Amici Curiae represent four national, five regional, and

33 state organizations that believe in, depend on, and actively

work to support a family farm system of agriculture.

Collectively, Amici Curiae represent well over a quarter of a

million family farmers and tens of thousands of other members

who are personally committed to preserving and creating a

vibrant rural America. Each organization is described

individually in the attached Appendix.

These organizations and their members know firsthand the

benefits rural communities realize by supporting family-owned

and -operated farms, and conversely the negative externalities

caused by non-family-owned corporate investment in

agriculture. All of these organizations support state laws, like

the Nebraska constitutional provision at issue here, that regulate

when and how non-family-based corporate entities may engage

in agriculture.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision to strike down Nebraska’s

voter-initiated law regulating which farm entities may use the

benefit of a state-created limited liability shield undermines the

family farm to the detriment of rural communities. The ability of

states to promote and protect the health and well-being of

struggling rural communities is of exceptional importance. If

the decision below is not reversed, Amici Curiae are justifiably

concemed it will open a floodgate to challenges to laws of other

states—many of them also within the predominantly agricultural

Eighth Circuit—that seek to promote the benefits of a family-

farm system of agriculture. Therefore, Amici Curiae all have a

vital interest in this Court granting the Petition for Writ of

Certiorari and reversing the Eighth Circuit’s decision.

1

No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, nor

did any person or entity, other than Amici or their counsel, make a

monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Family-owned and -operated farms are the backbone of

rural communities. Studies show that these family farms

generate real and measurable benefits for their local

communities. In contrast, academic and government studies

regularly show that the health and well-being of rural

communities decline as non-family-owned corporate entities

shielded from personal liability take over farming operations:

rural poverty increases, unemployment rates go up, civic

participation declines, and children’s health and welfare suffer.

In an effort to capture and promote the significant social

welfare benefits derived from family-owned and -operated

farms, states and citizens have enacted Jaws and constitutional

amendments that, to varying degrees, regulate or restrict non-

family-owned corporations’ ability to own farmland and engage

in farming. These laws do not implicate any individual’s right to

farm. Instead, these laws merely limit access to a state-created

limited liability shield. Generally, these laws require that, in

order to invoke the benefit of a liability-shielded business form,

a farming entity must have some family connection to the land

and at least one family member must maintain some direct

connection to the farming operation. The logic is simple: When

farmers have a direct allegiance to a particular farm and to its

surrounding community, the risks of corporate ownership—

where personal accountability to local residents and to the

property does not necessarily exist—diminish or disappear.

Nebraska’s constitutional amendment, known as

“Initiative 300” or “I-300,” was passed in 1982 by 56 percent of

the voting public. For more than 30 years, J-300 has

evenhandedly prohibited all limited liability entities from

owning farm or ranch land, and from engaging in farming or

ranching. Neb. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 8(1). I-300 provides an

exception for family farm or ranch corporations “in which the

majority of the voting stock is held by members of a family”

and at least one family member “is a person residing on or

actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the

3

farm or ranch.” Jd. at Sec. 8(1)(A). Both in- and out-of-state

family farm corporations may qualify for this exception equally.

By emphasizing family ownership and direct family

involvement in the farming operation, J-300 is precisely tailored

to capture the proven social, environmental, and economic

benefits of family-owned and -operated farming, and these

important benefits far outweigh any incidental burden placed on

interstate commerce.

The Eighth Circuit held I-300 discriminates against

interstate commerce and invalidated it on the basis of the

dormant Commerce Clause. See Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261

(8th Cir. 2006). Amici Curiae now ask this Court to grant the

Nebraska officials’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and to reverse

the Eighth Circuit, thereby returning rationality to dormant

Commerce Clause jurisprudence and providing certainty for

state governments and citizens seeking to preserve and promote

the benefits of family farming.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The Eighth Circuit’s decision places in doubt a host of state

laws that, like 1-300, regulate how and when corporations can

invest in local agriculture. Geographically, the Eighth Circuit

encompasses the heartland of American agriculture. Therefore,

it is not surprising that other state laws that similarly regulate

the forms of business entities that may engage in agriculture are

concentrated within the Eighth Circuit, and no other Circuit has

had—or is likely to have—an opportunity to review these

important state regulations on a dormant Commerce Clause

basis. Therefore, review by this Court is warranted and needed

at this time.

In addition, the Eighth Circuit’s decision implicates an

issue of tremendous national importance: what the future of

rural America will look like and what tools the states wiil be left

with to determine that future. Social science supports the

conclusion that permitting owners who are not personally

connected to the farm to access liability-shielded business

4

entities adversely affects the health and welfare of whole rural

communities. Conversely, family-owned and -operated farms

provide a wide range of positive benefits to the social fabric of

rural life. The Eighth Circuit’s decision deprives states of their

long-recognized ability to regulate to support family farms,

putting the entire landscape of rural America at risk. Immediate

review of the Eighth Circuit’s decision is critical not only to

clarify for states and citizens the scope of state authority, but

also to preserve the vitality of a host of agriculture-dependent

rural communities and the family farming way of life.

Finally, the particular method Nebraska has chosen to

support family farms in I-300 is evenhanded and well

conceived. 1-300 is not discriminatory. It neutrally regulates the

structure of business entities in agriculture, and it is not intended

to advantage in-state interests as against out-of-state interests

nor to create any barriers to interstate trade. 1-300 addresses the

particular act of farming or owning farmland within the state,

and responds directly to the social welfare damage caused by

unfettered corporate investment in agriculture by providing a

narrow, carefully tailored exception for amy corporation

(whether in- or out-of-state) that maintains the social,

environmental, health, and welfare benefits associated with a

family-based structure of ownership and operation of farms and

ranches. As such, I-300 is a core, non-discriminatory exercise of

the state’s police power.

I. The Decision Below Jeopardizes Similar State Laws

Concentrated Within the Agricultural Eighth Circuit.

Based on convincing evidence that family farms are the

most socially desirable form of agriculture, at least nine states

have enacted laws that, to varying degrees, restrict non-family-

owned corporations from engaging in farming or owning

agricultural land. See lowa Code §§ 9H.1, 9H.3 to 9H1.5, and

202B.101 to 202B.402; Kan. Stat. §§ 17-5902 to 17-5904;

Minn. Stat. § 500.24; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 350.010 to 350.040;

Neb. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 8(1); N.D. Cent. Code §§ 10-06.1-01

5

to 10.06.1-27; Okla. Const. Art. XXII § 2 and Okla. Stat. tit. 18,

§ 951; S.D. Codified Laws §§ 47-9A-1 to 47-9A-23;7 and Wis.

Stat. § 182.001. These states share a common concern about the

effect liability-shielded farm entities have on rural communities

and on agricultural properties within their boundaries, and

recognize that family-owned and -operated farms are the

foundation of the most sustainable and beneficial system of

agriculture. These state laws, and other important state efforts to

better the social welfare of rural communities, will be

immediately at risk if the Eighth Circuit’s decision is not

reversed.

Because the vast majority of states that directly regulate

business entities in agriculture are within the Eighth Circuit, this

Petition presents a unique and important opportunity for this

Court to address the constitutionality of these laws. The

geography of the Eighth Circuit literally encompasses the

agricultural center of this country. Naturally, most state efforts

to regulate the structure of local agricultural activities and

landholdings are therefore also within this Circuit. Thus, the

Eighth Circuit’s decision to strike down Nebraska’s voter-

enacted constitutional amendment on dormant Commerce

Clause grounds casts a ripple of doubt on these laws and

directly affects several states within the Eighth Circuit—

2 The Eighth Circuit previously struck down a voter-enacted South

Dakota constitutional amendment, known as Amendment E, that

regulated corporate engagement in agriculture. See §.D. Farm Bureau,

Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2003). In Hazeltine, the

Eighth Circuit looked only to evidence in the particular legislative

history of Amendment E and found a discriminatory purpose there. Id.

at 593. The court expressly elected not to consider any other prong of

the dormant Commerce Clause analysis. Jd. Therefore, the

constitutionality of. this legal mechanism itself—i.e., the

constitutionality of regulating certain farm entities’ access to a limited

liability shicld—was not directly considered.

6

including Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and South

Dakota.

Moreover, in addition to state laws, like those cited above,

that directly regulate the form of business entities permitted in

agriculture, the Eighth Circuit’s decision calls into question

state laws that require some form of direct local accountability

as a condition of doing business in the state. The degree to

which an in-state connection can be required is an open question

in this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Thus,

the Eighth Circuit’s decision could raise serious questions about

any state and local regulations that single out absentee

landlords, that provide fair housing exceptions for landlords

who physically reside in the place where rental units are being

offered, that require certain professionals to maintain a bona

fide physical office space in a given area, or that require these

same professionals to be physically present for mandatory

continuing education courses. The tenor of the Eighth Circuit’s

decision also casts doubt on an array of state zoning laws that

intentionally restrict who can do what where, so that the state

can shape the development of its own landscape and manage the

structures of its local markets.

These questions are particularly opportune in the farm

context at issue here. Farming is, by definition, entirely about a

direct and physical connection to the land. As Thomas Jefferson

recognized from the time of our nation’s founding, “Cultivators

of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most

vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are

tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by

the most lasting bonds.” 5 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 93

(Albert E. Bergh ed.) (1905). When farmers and farmland

owners are no longer “cultivators of the earth,” but instead

become anonymous business entities shielded by legal limits on

personal liability, states are justifiably concerned.

This same pragmatic reasoning has been adopted by the

federal government, which makes active owner-operation of a

family farm a condition of eligibility for the United States

7

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency’s

real estate and operating loans, an important source of

agricultural credit.” In addition, an entire chapter of the federal

bankruptcy code is set aside for the benefit of family farmers

who are actually “engaged in a farm operation.” 11 U.S.C. §§

101(18)(A), 1201-31. And USDA has implemented an internal

policy to develop and support programs focusing on the needs

of owner-operated small farms and to reflect this purpose in all

of its service areas. USDA Departmental Regulation No. 9700-1

§ 4(b), 5(c) (“Small Farms Policy”) (Sept. 8, 1999).*

Moreover, in other contexts, this Court has consistently

recognized the power of states to act to preserve and promete a

family farm system of agriculture, which is itself a long part of

our national heritage.° For example, in upholding a North

> These federal real estate and operating loans for farmers are

limited to (1) individuals who operate a family farm; (2) entities

whose majority interest is held by persons related by blood or

marriage with at least one owner operating a family farm; and (3)

entities not controlled by persons related by blood or marriage where

all owners and the entity itself operate a family farm. 7 C.F.R. §

762.120(1), Gj); 7 C.F.R. § 1941.12(a)(5), (b)(5)-(6); 7 C.F.R. §

1943.12(a)(5), (b)(4)-(5) (2006). For these purposes, qualification as a

“family farm” includes the requirements that the farm be directly

managed by the individual borrower or entity owner responsible for

its operation, and that “a substantial amount of the labor requirements

for the farm enterprise” be provided by the individual borrower or the

entity owner responsible for its operation, along with family members.

7 C.F.R. § 762.102, “Family Farm” (3), (4); 7 C.F.R. § 1941.4,

“Family Farm” (c), (d); 7 C.F.R. § 1943.4, “Family Farm” (c), (d)

(2006).

4

Available at http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfpolicy.htm.

Corporations, by contrast, are creatures of state law that were

historically disfavored by the founders. See Louis K. Liggett Co. v.

Lee, 288 U.S. 517, 549 (1933) (Brandcis, J., dissenting) (stating that

“at first, the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when

5

8

Dakota law requiring corporations to divest themselves of their

agricultural land holdings within the state (with an exception for

corporations that were predominantly owned by farmers

residing on farmland), this Court has acknowledged the

“unqualified power of the state to preclude [a corporation’s

entry] into the state.” Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U.S.

207, 210-11 (1945) (rejecting Equal Protection and other

constitutional challenges to state law) (emphasis added); see

also Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 245

(1984) (recognizing in a Takings case, “The Hawaii legislature

enacted its Land Reform Act not to benefit a particular class of

identifiable individuals but to attack certain perceived evils of

concentration of property ownership in Hawaii—a legitimate

public purpose.”); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303

(1976) (noting in an Equal Protection case, “States are accorded

wide latitude in the regulation of their local economies under

their police powers.”).

In cases where nondiscriminatory laws were challenged

under the dormant Commerce Clause, this Court and other

courts have found the state’s interest in fostering family farms

and rural communities outweighs any burdens placed on

interstate commerce. See, e.g., Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341,

362-63 (1943) (upholding California’s raisin marketing order

“because upon a consideration of all the relevant facts and

circumstances it appears that the matter is one which may

appropriately be regulated in the interest of the safety, health

and well-being of local communities”); Hampton Feed Lots v.

Nixon, 249 F.3d 814, 820 (8th Cir. 2001) (upholding against

dormant Commerce Clause attack a Missouri price

discrimination law that directly regulated the sale of livestock in

the grant seemed necessary in order to procure for the community

some benefit otherwise unattainable”); Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v.

Green, 430 U.S. 462, 479 (1977) (reaffirming again that “corporations

are creatures of state law”) (internal quotation omitted).

9

Missouri for out-of-state packers by recognizing state “authority

to determine the course of its farming economy”).

Furthermore, this Court has emphatically rejected the

“notion that the Commerce Clause protects the particular

structure or methods of operation in a. . . market.” Exxon Corp.

v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117, 127 (1978) (upholding

state law prohibiting vertical integration in the petroleum

industry by prohibiting all petroleum producers and refiners

from operating retail gas stations in Maryland even where all of

the burden fell on out-of-state entities); see also CTS Corp. v.

Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69, 92-93 (1987).

Despite these strong lines of cases supporting a state’s right

to enact laws to support a family-owned and -operated farm

structure of agriculture, the lack of an authoritative decision

° A string of other court decisions have also found the states’

important interest in the preservation of family farms as economic

units sufficient to withstand other constitutional challenges, including

where the challenged law regulated corporate entry into agriculture.

E.g., MSM Farms, Inc. v. Spire, 927 F.2d 330, 335 (8th Cir. 1991)

(denying Equal Protection challenge to 1-300 based on citizens’

“reasonable judgment that prohibiting non-family corporate farming

serves the public interest in preserving an agriculture where families

own and farm the land”); Hall v. Progress Pig, Inc., 610 N.W.2d 420,

429-431 (Neb. 2000) (rejecting Equal Protection Clause challenge to

]-300 based on state’s interest in “retaining and promoting family

farm operations”); State ex rel. Webster v. Lehndorff Geneva, Inc.,

744 S.W.2d 801, 805-06 (Mo. 1988) (rejecting Equal Protection

challenge to Missouri’s regulation of corporate investment in

agriculture); see also Equip. Mfrs. Inst. v. Janklow, 300 F.3d 842, 860

(8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing in a Contracts Clause case the

“unquestionably significant and legitimate” state interest in “serving

the farmer and rural communities in South Dakota”); Van

Kerssenbrock-Praschma v. Saunders, 121 F.3d 373, 378 (8th Cir.

1997) (describing in an Equal Protection case “preserving the family

farm system” as “a legitimate governmental purpose”).

10

from this Court on the constitutionality of laws like I-300 has

created significant confusion and uncertainty beyond just the

Eighth Circuit’s decision in this case. See, e.g., Doug O’Brien,

Policy Approaches to Address Problems Associated with

Consolidation and Vertical Integration in Agriculture, 9 Drake

J. Agnic. L. 33, 34, 37 (2004) (describing problems associated

with increasing consolidation and vertical integration in

agriculture and noting obstacles caused by uncertainty of state

authority to respond); Roger A. McEowen & Neil E. Harl,

South Dakota Amendment E Ruled Unconstitutional—Is There a

Future for Legislative Involvement in Shaping the Structure of

Agriculture?, 37 Creighton L. Rev. 285, 302 (2004) (warning

Eighth Circuit precedent “raises serious concerns about the

analysis of future dormant Commerce Clause cases” and “could

also have a chilling effect on further legislation impacting the

future structure of agriculture”); see also Christy Anderson

Brekken, South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine: The

Eighth Circuit Abandons Federalism, Precedent, and Family

Farmers, 22 Law & Ineq. J. 347 (2004). |

Although this Court has recognized its dormant Commerce

Clause jurisprudence “has not always been easy to follow,” CTS

Corp., 481 U.S. at 87, important issues are presented clearly by

this case and are ripe for review. Efforts by states like Nebraska

to regulate how and when a farm entity may legally shield its

owners from personal liability are consistent with prior cases

from this Court that have recognized both the importance of the

state’s interest in preserving family farms and the state’s

authority to evenhandedly regulate the structure of its local

agricultural markets. Given the number of states that have

adopted laws similar to I-300, especially within the Eighth

Circuit, it is essential to the day-to-day functioning of state

governments, and to the mission and work of citizen groups like

the Amici Curiae represented in this brief, to have clear

guidance from this Court.

11

li. State Laws Like Nebraska’s Initiative 300 Are Critically

Important to Capture the Proven Social Welfare

Benefits of a Family Farm System of Agriculture.

Social science supports the conclusion that the corporate

structure of farm entities is directly tied to the health and well-

being of rural communities. Government and academic

studies consistently demonstrate the broad range of social

benefits associated with family-owned and -operated farms, and

show how the health and welfare of rural communities seriously

decline as corporate owners, shielded from personal liability and

physically removed from farming, take over farm operations.’

This result is in large part common sense: For-profit

corporations, by nature, are creatures of state law that are

specifically designed to allocate capital in what is deemed the

most “efficient,” or profitable, manner without regard to

communities, neighborhoods, and families. See, e.g., Louis K.

’ The term “family farms,” as it is used here, refers to farms on

which day-to-day labor and management are provided by the farmer

and/or the farm family. “Industrial farms,” by contrast, are non-

family-based production units characterized by absentee corporate

ownership and a division of labor among owners, managers, and other

hired labor. See, e.g., Marty Strange, Family Farming: A New

Economic Vision 32-42 (1988).

Ownership structure is a key difference between family and

industrial farms; however, the size of the farm is also often used as a

proxy for distinguishing industrial farms from more traditional family

farms. “When social scientists refer to ‘industrialized’ farms, they

invariably are referring to both scale and organizational characteristics

of the farm unit.” Linda M. Lobao, /ndustrialized Farming and Its

Relationship to Community Well-Being: Report Prepared for the State

of South Dakota, Office of Attorney General 4 (January 2000),

http://www.agribusinessaccountability .org/pdfs//

270_Industrialized%20Farming.pdf (prepared for South Dakota

Farmers Bureau v. South Dakota in the United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota).

12

Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517, 565-66 (1933) (Brandeis, J.,

dissenting). In contrast, family farms, and the families that

operate them, strive for different goals: building sustainable

rural communities, promoting responsible stewardship of soil,

water, and other resources, and ensuring through family

ownership that land can be farmed by future generations. See,

e.g., Marty Strange, Family Farming: A New Economic Vision

32-42 (1988).

In the 1940s, at the direction of the U.S. Senate,

anthropologist Dr. Walter Goldschmidt undertook one of the

earliest objective comparisons of the community impacts of

family farms and industrial farms. Goldschmidt studied two

rural California communities in which the structure and size of

farms were different, but the total value of farm production was

almost identical. Walter Goldschmidt, As You Sow: Three

Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness xxiv, 306-

14 (2d ed. 1978). One community was characterized by large-

scale farms extensively employing wage laborers while the

other was characterized by smaller family-owned and -operated.

farms. Jd. at 279-82, 316-20.

Goldschmidt concluded that residents of the community

with larger, industrialized farms realized a lower standard of

living and quality of life as compared to the residents of the

community with smaller family farms. Jd. at 282-84. Residents

of the community dominated by industrial farms had lower

levels of income and educational attainment. Jd. Further, the

fiscal and political structure of the community was controlled by

the owners of those industrial farms, who did not live in the

community and cared little about the quality and diversity of

public services. /d. In contrast, Goldschmidt concluded that a

greater concentration of independent family farmers created an

economic structure with more evenly distributed incomes and a

larger middle class. /d. These communities also had more

comprehensive and better quality public services because the

family farmers lived and worked in the same community and

13

took a strong interest in local government and the services it

provided. Jd.

Since Goldschmidt published his results, research continues

to confirm the “detrimental effects of industrial farming on

many indicators of community quality of life, particularly those

involving the social fabric of communities.” Linda M. Lobao,

Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community

Well-Being: Report Prepared for the State of South Dakota

22(Jan. 2000), http:/Awww.agribusinessaccountability.org/pdfs//

270_Industrialized%20Farming.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2007)

(summarizing 38 studies of industrial farming and community

well-being); see also Curtis W. Stofferahn, Industrialized

Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: An

Update of a 2000 Report by Linda Lobao 19, 30 (Sept. 2006),

http://www.und.nodak.edu/misc/ndrural/

Lobao%20&%20Stofferahn.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2007)

(reviewing 56 studies on the effect of industrialized farming on

community well-being and concluding 82 percent of these

studies found some level of detrimental effect resulting from

industrialized farming); Linda M. Lobao, Locality and

Inequality: Farm and Industry Structure and Socioeconomic

Conditions 53-75 (1990); Thomas A. Lyson & Rick Welsh,

Agricultural Industrialization, Anticorporate Farming Laws,

and Rural Community Welfare, 37 Environment and Planning

A:1479, 1481 (2005).

In particular, industrial farming leads to declines in local

population, lower incomes and lower standards of living, lower

numbers and quality of community services, lower community

integration and greater psychological stress, and a less diverse

economic base and higher unemployment.” David J. Peters,

Technical Paper P-0702-1, Revisiting the Goldschmidt

Hypothesis: The Effect of Economic Structure on

Socioeconomic Conditions in the Rural Midwest 4 (Mo. Econ.

14

Research and Info. Ctr., 2002);* see also Lyson & Welsh,

Agricultural Industrialization at 1481. Industrial farming has

also been shown to result in increased crime, increased social

conflict, loss of democratic decision-making as industrial

interests dominate local politics, decline in the number of

churches and local retail units, and environmental consequences

including ecosystem strains and increased environmental

violations. Lobao, /ndustrialized Farming at 15-16. In locations

near large industrial hog confinement structures in particular,

neighbors also complain of health problems and declining

property values. Jd. at 16.

In contrast, counties dominated by moderate-sized family

farms “consistently have better socioeconomic well-being,

including lower family poverty, higher median family income,

lower unemployment, and lower infant mortality.” Jd. at 7.

Greater concentrations of farm proprietorships—defined as

unincorporated farms owned by an individual—also produce

better health and socioeconomic conditions for children. Peters,

Revisiting the Goldschmidt Hypothesis at 17,21, 24. Children in

counties dominated by more farm proprietorships, with fewer

8 Available at

http://www.missourifarmersunion.org/conf03/goldschmidt03.pdf.

® Large industrial farms can also cause significant environmental

damage to a state’s soil, water, and natural resources. In addition to

the sheer consequences of their size, industrial corporate farms’

liability shield, and the fact that their investors are not themselves

living in the loca] environment, combine to make these entities even

more risky to the environment. Although this brief will not exhaust

the arguments about the environmental degradation caused by

industrial farming, additional information on this issue can be found

in Mark Lawrence, Studying the Impacts of Industrial Confined

Animal Feeding Operations: A Review of the Literature 10,

http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/hogodorreview.pdf (last

visited Feb. 26, 2007).

15

community members employed in industrial agriculture,

measured better on four tested indicators—the percent of

children enrolled in free and reduced price lunch programs, low

birth weight infants, births to teen females, and the high school

drop out rate. [d. at 8.

Interestingly, this Peters study determined that

concentration of similar non-farm unincorporated businesses did

not have the same impact, indicating “it is not proprietorships in

general that matters, but that there is something unique about

the economic activity of farming.” Jd. at 24. Peters explained

this by pointing to other studies that have found that

in farm families there is a high degree of overlap

between business, leisure and family life that is not

found in other types of family business. Farming also

differs in that it is much more than an economic

activity, but is a lifestyle rooted in certain values

regarding the family and the land.

Id. The priority placed on intergenerational farm succession in

many farm families also helps explain this phenomenon. /d.

Family farms also produce more employment than their

industrial counterparts. One study revealed that large-scale hog

farms displace about three times the number of independent hog

farmers than they create in jobs. See John E. Ikerd, The

Economic Impacts of Increased Contract Swine Production in

Missouri: Another Viewpoint,

http://www.ssu.missouri.eduw/faculty/jikerd/papers/con-hog.htm

(last visited Feb. 26, 2007). Studies have also confirmed that

smaller operations make more of their purchases from local

suppliers than do larger enterprises. Mark Lawrence, Studying

the Impacts of Industrial Confined Animal Feeding Operations:

A Review of the Literature 10,

http://www kerrcenter.com/publications/hogodorreview.pdf (last

visited Feb. 26, 2007). Accordingly, rural development experts

estimate that for every five to seven farms that go out of

business, one business in the rural community closes. Osha Gray

16

Davidson, Broken Heartland: The Rise of America’s Rural

Ghetto 57 (1990).

The federal government has also recognized the importance

of family farms to the general welfare of rural communities and

to the overall health of our nation. The United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) has espoused a vision of

American agriculture that focuses on “farms with less than

$250,000 gross receipts annually, on which day-to-day labor

and management are provided by the farmer and/or the farm

family that owns the production or owns, or leases, the

productive assets.” A Time to Act: A Report of the USDA

National Commission on Small Farms 28 (1998) (emphasis

added).'° As a shorthand, USDA refers to these farms as “small

farms” but the requirement of direct and active management is

essential, and the USDA has recognized family farms’ benefits:

Small farms contribute more than farm production to

our society. Small farms embody a diversity of

ownership, cropping systems, landscapes, biological

organization, culture, and traditions. Since the majority

of farmland is managed by a large number of small

farm operators, the responsible management of soil,

water, and wildlife encompassed by these farms

produces significant environmental _ benefits.

Decentralized land ownership produces more equitable

economic opportunity for people in rural communities,

and offers self-employment and business management

opportunities. Farms, particularly family farms, can be

nurturing places for children to grow up and acquire

the values of responsibility and hard work.

Id. at 8.

'° Available at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/pdfs/

time_to_act_1998 pdf.

17

Finally, studies show that state efforts “to discourage the

development of a nonfamily-based corporate agriculture and

to retain an agricultural industry that is dominated by family-

owned, family-operated and family-controlled production

units” are successful. Lyson & Welsh, Agricultural

Industrialization at 1483, 1489-90. A comparison of

agriculture-dependent counties in states with corporate

farming laws, such as Nebraska, to those without such laws,

reveals that the tested counties in states with corporate farm

laws have fewer families in poverty, lower unemployment,

and a higher percentage of farms realizing cash gains. Rick

Welsh & Thomas A. Lyson, Anti-Corporate Farming Laws,

The “Goldschmidt Hypothesis” and Rural Community

Welfare 19-22,

http://www.askfarmerbrown.org/welshlyson.pdf (last visited

Feb. 26, 2007).

Thus, social science supports the logic of Nebraska’s

chosen distinction between family-owned corporate farm

entities and non-family-owned corporate farm entities. The

Eighth Circuit’s decision deprives states of a long-held and

important method cf fostering healthy and viable rural

communities. States must have the authority to regulate their

local economies for the health and welfare of their citizens

and communities. See Dukes, 427 U.S. at 303. Maintaining a

family farm system of agriculture is critical for a range of

social welfare indicators, and it is a proper role for states to

act to capture and promote these benefits by regulating non-

family-based corporate investment in agriculture. Given the

significance of these issues for the future of American

agriculture and, for that matter, all of rural America, it is

essential that this Court accept review of this case and reverse

the Eighth Circuit.

18

Ill. Initiative 300 Does Not Discriminate Against Interstate

Commerce and Its Benefits Far Outweigh Any

Incidental Burden.

A. Initiative 300 Is an Evenhanded Regulation.

I-300 is blind to the citizenship of its regulated parties, and

permits both in- and out-of-state citizens to own farmland and to

engage in farming as long as they meet the same neutral criteria.

Because out-of-state corporations are treated the same as in-

state corporations, there can be no discrimination. See Or. Waste

Sys., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S. 93, 99 (1994). I-

300 treats all parties equally by prohibiting a// limited liability

entities from owning farmland or engaging in farming—

regardless of the place of incorporation and regardless of the

investors’ citizenship or residency. The existence of an

exception for family farm or ranch corporations does not make

1-300 discriminatory because, as Nebraska has made clear, both

in- and out-of-state corporations may qualify for the family farm

exception.

The fact that five of the six plaintiffs in this case are

Nebraska residents underlines the conclusion that I-300 does not

discriminate in favor of Nebraska residents. See Minnesota v.

Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 473 n.17 (1981)

(“The existence of major in-state interests adversely affected by

the Act is a powerful safeguard against legislative abuse.”). I-

300 applies equally to in-state residents and to entities

incorporated in Nebraska. Nebraska corporations cannot engage

in farming unless they too qualify as a family farm corporation,

or meet one of the other neutral exceptions. Thus, a Nebraska

corporation that is not majority-owned by a family, or in which

no family member resides on or actively manages any portion of

the corporate-owned farm, would be equally barred from

owning farmland or engaging in farming in Nebraska.

This Court has held “[t}he fact that the burden of a state

regulation falls on some interstate companies does not, by itself,

establish a claim of discrimination against interstate commerce.”

19

Exxon Corp., 437 U.S. at 126. Moreover, courts should “not

invalidate a state statute .. . merely because some legislators

sought to obtain votes for the measure on the basis of its

beneficial side effects on state industry.” Clover Leaf Creamery,

449 U.S. at 463 n.7; see also id. at 471 n.15 (expressly applying

this language to dormant Commerce Clause analysis). States

clearly only have authority to regulate within their states, and

their state police power authorities only go to their own citizens.

Thus, it cannot be discrimination merely to attempt to regulate

for the benefit of Nebraska’s own rural communities, and this

Court should grant this writ to avoid an unwanted acceleration

of dormant Commerce Clause challenges to a host of traditional

exercises of state police powers, particularly at this vulnerable

time for the future of rural America.

B. The Benefits of Initiative 300 to Rural Welfare

Far Outweigh Any Incidental and De Minimis

Impact on Interstate Commerce.

Because I-300 is not discriminatory and is justified by a

legitimate and recognized state interest, it is subject to the Pike

balancing test. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142

(1970). Thus, the plaintiffs must prove that an actual burden

exists upon interstate commerce and that the burden outweighs

any putative local benefit to Nebraska rural communities. The

burden in this case is slight at best. Out-of-state corporate

interests can own and operate farms in Nebraska as long as they

meet the same requirements that a Nebraska corporation must—

that a member of the family owning a majority of the

corporation reside on or provide the day-to-day labor or

management on some portion of the corporate-owned farm. In

addition, any individual or entity that maintains personal

liability can farm or ranch in Nebraska regardless of citizenship

or residency. Thus, the burden of I-300 on interstate commerce

is, at most, de minimis.

In comparison, Nebraska’s interest in maintaining the

social, economic, and environmental health and welfare of its

rural communities is significant. 1-300 promotes Nebraska’s

20

interest in preventing unrestricted corporate ownership of farm

operations, and supporters of I-300 reasonably feared this type

of absentee ownership “would adversely affect the rural social

and economic structure, and would result in decreased

stewardship and preservation of soil, water, and other natural

resources.” MSM Farms, Inc., 927 F.2d at 333. In addition, as

described in detail in Part II of this brief, studies consistently

show that family farms are indeed better for rural communities,

and that rural counties in states with corporate farm laws fare

better in critical welfare measures. E.g., Lobao, Locality and

Inequality at 53-75; Welsh & Lyson, Anti-Corporate Farming

Laws at 19-22.

The benefits of reducing poverty, unemployment, and

social discord, while improving civic participation and

children’s health, clearly outweigh any burden placed on non-

family farm corporations seeking to farm in Nebraska.

Therefore, 1-300 is constitutional, and the Eighth Circuit

decision to the contrary must be reversed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully Submitted,

SUSAN E. STOKES

Counsel of Record

JESSICA A. SHOEMAKER

Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc.

360 N. Robert Street, Suite 500

St. Paul, MN 55101

(651) 223-5400

Counsel for Amici Curiae

March 1, 2007

la

APPENDIX

INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS OF INTEREST

OF AMICI CURIAE

1. The National Farmers Union (NFU), officially called the

Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America, is a

farm organization with a membership of nearly 250,000 farm

and ranch families throughout the United States. NFU is a

federation, with the presidents of the 23 state and one regional

(covering three states) Farmers Union organizations serving as

its board of directors. For more than 100 years, NFU’s primary

goal has been to sustain and strengthen family farm and ranch

agriculture.

2. The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) represents

35 grassroots farm and rural advocacy organizations in more

than 30 states. Formed in 1986, the coalition coordinates the

efforts of a growing network of grassroots organizations

committed to preserving and enhancing a family farm

production system in the United States. NFFC’s work includes

education, outreach, and advocacy for stable rural communities,

safe food, and the preservation of natural resources through

family farming.

3. American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) is

America’s leading progressive commodity association,

representing the interests of corn producers in 35 states. Since

its inception in 1987, the ACGA has worked tirelessly to

enhance farm income and protect rural communities. ACGA

members work together on economic, policy, and research

issues affecting rural communities.

4. The Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment

(CFFE) is an unincorporated association of family farm and

community membership organizations including the Citizens

Action Coalition of Indiana, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, lowa

Citizens for Community Improvement, Land Stewardship

2a

Project, and Missouri Rural Crisis Center. CFFE and its

members seek to develop and implement farm policies, farming

practices, and marketing systems that help family farms and

rural communities thrive. CFFE and its member organizations

believe laws that restrict non-family-based corporations’

involvement in farming are an important part of state policy

supporting family farming.

5. The Center for Rural Affairs is a private, non-profit

organization incorporated and operating in the State of

Nebraska, which undertakes public policy advocacy, research,

service, and educational work to support the independent and

family farm and ranch system of agriculture. The Center for

Rural Affairs is a proponent of Initiative 300 and assisted in the

drafting of Initiative 300 and the petition drive to place

Initiative 300 on the 1982 general election ballot.

6. The Federation of Southern Cooperatives (FSC) is a

service, resource, and advocacy association for a constituency of

25,000 low-income families organized into over 100

cooperatives in rural communities across the South.

An outgrowth of the Civil Rights Movement, one of FSC’s

mission areas is advocacy for public policy changes to assist

family farmers and rural poor people to improve their lives and

communities. 7

7. Great Plains Environmental Law Center (GPELC) is a

nonprofit environmental law and advocacy organization located

in Omaha, Nebraska. GPELC volunteers provide legal

assistance to environmental organizations and family farm

groups concerned with the negative environmental impact of

corporate farming practices in the Great Plains Region.

8. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is a

national non-profit organization that has worked for more than

twenty years to support family farmers and promote sound

agricultural policy. An on-farm ownership presence is at the

heart of our mission.

3a

9. Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) is

a network of grassroots organizations from seven states that

includes 9,500 members and 45 local community groups.

WORC’s seven state organizations are: Dakota Resource

Council (North Dakota), Dakota Rural Action (South Dakota),

the Idaho Rural Council (Idaho), the Northern Plains Resource

Council (Montana), Oregon Rural Action (Oregon), the Powder

River Basin Resource Council (Wyoming), and the Western

Colorado Congress (Colorado). WORC’s mission is to advance

the vision of a democratic, sustainable, and just society through

community action.

10. The American Corn Growers of Nebraska is the state

chapter of ACGA. The ACGA of Nebraska is an active

supporter of continued viability and enforcement of Initiative

300.

11. Arkansas Farmers Union (AFU) is a non-profit

membership-based organization with approximately 13,900

members. AFU works to protect and enhance the economic

interests and quality of life of family farmers and ranchers in

rural communities.

12. California Farmers Union (CFU) works to promote the

well-being of rural California and specifically supports

California family farmers. CFU serves its membership by

presenting the organization’s policies to lawmakers at the local,

state, and national level. CFU also assists with the development

of farmer-owned cooperatives.

13. Founded in 1974, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana

(CAC) is a non-profit coalition of organizations with more than

250,000 individual members throughout Indiana. For over two

decades, CAC has worked to empower citizens and promote

economic and environmental justice, including promotion of

family-farm-based agriculture.

14. Dakota Resource Council (DRC) is a grassroots

organization formed in 1978 to protect North Dakota’s natural

da

resources, rural communities, and agricultural economy. DRC is

working for preservation of family farms, enforcement of

corporate farming laws, protection of groundwater and clean air,

and renewable energy.

15. Dakota Rural Action (DRA) is a grassroots family

agriculture and conservation group that organizes South

Dakotans to protect family farmers and ranchers and main street

businesses while preserving natural resources, aclean

environment, and a unique rural way of life. Formed in 1987,

DRA makes supporting a family-based system of agriculture a

top priority.

16. Farms Without Harm is a non-profit network of

concerned citizens and small farmers that support safe,

sustainable farming in Michigan. Farms Without Harm educates

legislators and the public about the negative impact of factory

farms on health, the environment, the local economy, and

animal welfare.

17. Friends of the Constitution is a 21-member coalition that

has existed since the adoption of Initiative 300 with the sole

purpose of defending and enforcing Initiative 300. Its members

are: American Corn Growers Association, Citizens for Air,

Resources and Environment, Center for Rural Affairs, Custer

County Sustainable Agriculture Society, League of Rural

Voters, Mid-Nebraska PRIDE, Nebraska Appieseed Center for

Law in the Public Interest, Nebraska Catholic Conference,

Nebraska Chapter—-Sitrra Club, Nebraska Grange, Nebraska

Lutheran Advocacy, Nebraska Farmers Organization, Nebraska

Farmers Union, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society,

Nebraska Wildlife Federation, Nebraska—Worth Fighting For,

Nebraskans for Peace, Northeast Nebraska Ag Support Group,

Saunders County Livestock, Save Our Rural Resources, and

Women Involved in Farm Economics.

18. Ilinois Farmers Union (ILFU) is a non-profit advocacy

group representing family farmers across the state of Illinois.

Sa

ILFU has more than 700 members statewide. Founded in 1954,

ILFU is committed to providing effective grassroots leadership

to build a sustainable economic system in which family farms

and rural communities thrive and prosper. ILFU has worked to

preserve Illinois’s restrictions on corporate ownership of

farmland and livestock.

19. The Illinois Stewardship Alliance (ISA) is a membership

organization founded in 1974 as the Illinois South Project. ISA

is a citizens’ organization that promotes a safe and nutritious

food system, family farming, and healthy communities by

advocating diverse, humane, socially just, and ecologically

sustainable production and marketing practices.

20. Indiana Farmers Union (INFU) is a producer-driven

membership organization with approximately 750 members.

INFU’s primary goal is to sustain family farms and strengthen

rural Indiana. INFU supports passage of a law regulating

corporate-owned farms in Indiana and nationally.

21. Lowa Farmers Union (IFV) is a non-profit advocacy group

representing family farmers across the state of Iowa. IFU’s

mission is to promote a viable system of sustainable agriculture

and a high quality of life in rural communities. IFU supports and

has worked to preserve Iowa’s restrictions on corporate

ownership of farmland and livestock.

22. Kansas Farmers Union (KFU) is a _ non-profit

membership-based organization with approximately 9,000

members, a significant number of whom are Kansas farmers.

Founded in 1907, KFU works to protect and enhance the

economic interests and quality of life of family farmers and

ranchers in rural communities. KFU policy supports legislation

similar to Nebraska’s corporate farm law in Kansas.

23. The Land Stewardship Project (LSP) is a membership

organization founded in 1982 and based in Minnesota. LSP’s

mission is to foster an ethic of stewardship for farmland,

promote sustainable agriculture, and develop sustainable

6a

communities. Hundreds of LSP’s members are family farmers,

and farming is an important element of the economies and

environment of Minnesota’s rural communities where these

members live. LSP supports and has worked to preserve

Minnesota’s corporate farming law.

24. Michigan Farmers Union (MIFU) is a statewide family

farm and rural advocacy organization. Established in 1932,

MIFU is dedicated to strengthening the family farm system. Its

policies are designed to reaffirm the family farm structure as the

primary agricultural system and to assure rural and urban

stability, the preservation of human and natural resources, and

the dignity of the individual and family.

25. Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU) is a non-profit

membership-based organization with approximately 23,400

members, about 95 percent of whom are Minnesota farmers.

Founded in 1929, MFU works to protect and enhance the

economic interests and quality of life of family farmers and

ranchers in rural communities. MFU has lobbied at the

Minnesota legislature to protect Minnesota’s corporate farming

law, Minn. Stat. § 500.24.

26. Missouri Farmers Union (MOFU) is a non-profit

membership-based organization with approximately 1,500

members, all of whom are Missouri farmers. Founded in 1999,

MOFU works to protect and enhance the economic interests and

quality of life of family farmers and ranchers in rural

communities. MOFU has been active in lobbying for family

farmers and ranchers and has encouraged the passage of a

stricter Missouri corporate farming law.

27. The Missouri Rural Crisis Center (MRCC) is a non-profit

organization founded in 1985 by Missouri farmers and rural

citizens, with more than 5,500 member families statewide today.

MRCC’s mission is to preserve family farms, promote

stewardship of the land and environmental integrity, and strive

for justice among diverse groups, both rural and urban.

Ta

28. The Montana Farmers Union (MTFU) is a non-profit

membership-based organization with approximately 1,850

members, about 95 percent of whom are Montana farmers.

Established in 1916, MTFU is organized to serve the interests of

Montana farm and ranch families, along with rural communities,

through the principles of education, legislation, and cooperation

for economic prosperity and quality of life for all Montanans.

29. Nebraska Environmental Action Coalition (NEAC),

a non-partisan, non-profit organization, is a statewide affiliation

of individuals and organizations whose goal is the protection

and preservation of Nebraska’s natural heritage—its air, water,

soil, and beauty—by addressing environmental and

sustainability concerns in both its agricultural systems and urban

infrastructure.

30. Nebraska Farmers Union (NEFU) is the second largest

general farm organization in the State of Nebraska, and has

been, and continues to be, dedicated to protecting and enhancing

the economic well-being and quality of life of family farmers

and ranchers and their rural communities. NEFU was actively

involved in drafting Initiative 300, organizing the petition drive

to place Initiative 300 on the 1982 general election ballot, and

otherwise advocating for Initiative 300.

31. The Nebraska Grange is the state chapter of the National

Grange, the nation’s oldest national agricultural organization.

The Nebraska Grange provides service to agricultural and rural

areas on a wide variety of issues, designed to assure a strong

and viable rural America. The Nebraska Grange was a

proponent of Initiative 300 and assisted in advocating on behalf

of Initiative 300 in the 1982 election.

32. Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE)

is an agricultural association organized in 1976 at Sidney,

Nebraska. WIFE supports the family farm concept as the most

efficient and reliable source for a secure food supply system.

WIFE was a proponent of Initiative 300, assisting in drafting

8a

Initiative 300, circulating petitions, and advocating for its

passage.

33. Founded in 1927, North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU)

is a producer-controlled organization dedicated to serving its

37,000 North Dakota family members. NDFU believes that the

family farm system of agriculture is the only Way to ensure rural

and urban stability, national prosperity, the preservation of

human and natural resources, and the dignity of the individual

and the family.

34. Ohio Farmers Union (OFV) is a non-partisan, non-profit

advocacy group and service provider to a membership

consisting of approximately 5,800 families. For 72 years, OFU

has engaged in activities in Ohio with a goal of supporting and

sustaining a family-farm-based system of agriculture. OFU’s

primary goal is to sustain and strengthen family farm and ranch

agriculture. OFU supports the rights of communities to express

their preferences in structuring their societies and supports

legislation such as Nebraska’s Initiative 300.

35. Pennsylvania Farmers Union (PFU) has approximately

1,400 members. PFU’s mission includes supporting family-

farm-based agriculture.

36. Founded in 1973, the Powder River Basin Resource

Council is a grassroots organization of ranchers and landowners

working to conserve Wyoming’s natural resources and preserve

and strengthen family ranches and farms to ensure a future for

the state’s small towns and rural economies. Powder River has

more than 1,000 members, primarily in northeastern Wyoming.

37. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU) represents

approximately 23,000 family farm and ranch members in

Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Founded in 1907,

RMFU works to protect and enhance the economic interests and

quality of life of family farmers and ranchers and the rural

communities where they live.

9a

38. South Dakota Farmers Union (SDFU) is a grassroots

organization of about 10,000 members and has been the voice of

South Dakota farm families for nearly a century. SDFU works

as farmers’ “hired hand” in the halls of state and federal

government.

39. Texas Farmers Union promotes and protects the interests

of family farmers and ranchers and others who live in rural

communities, to inform and educate agricultural producers

about their economic environment and about legislation which

might affect their well-being.

40. Utah Farmers Union, a non-profit organization, was

chartered in 1954 and currently has about 2,700 members. Its

family farmer and rancher membership is concerned about

corporate engagement in agriculture.

41. Washington Farmers Union (WAFU) is a state-based

farm organization committed to the sustainability of family

farming. WAFU’s work includes efforts to support family

farmers by achieving fair markets for farmers and addressing

environmental issues in Washington state.

42. Wisconsin Farmers Union (WFU) is committed to

enhancing the quality of life for family farmers, rural

communities, and all people through educational opportunities,

cooperative endeavors, and civic engagement. Chartered in

1930, WFU has a long history of advocacy on behalf of family

farms and rural people, and is a strong proponent of Wis. Stat.

Ann. § 182.001, which restricts corporate involvement in

agriculture.