A year-old case of R-CALF, et al. v. USDA, seeking to end use of a tool intended to help control sick animals, will be sued under a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. The USDA’s attempt to get the lawsuit dismissed failed.
R-CALF, the independent breeder group based in Billings, MT, is challenging the USDA’s mandatory electronic identification (EID) rule, which took effect November 5, 2024. R-CALF is represented by Kara Rollins, litigation attorney for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA).
The 2024 final rule replaced a previous animal identification rule that gave producers the option of using low-cost metal ear tags or expensive EID ear tags when transporting sexually intact adult cattle across state lines. Breeders lost that choice in the 2024 final rule, with the mandate dictating the use of the more expensive EID ear tags.
The official name of R-CALF is the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), which is the largest grower-only trade association in the United States. Join R-CALF USA in suing USDA over electronic ear tag mandate are the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance and South Dakota stockgrowers Kenny and Roxie Fox, and Rick and Theresa Fox.
R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard responded to the court’s decision allowing the case to proceed by saying, “We will of course continue to argue that the final rule is unnecessary, because the previous rule that allowed breeders to choose the type of ear tags that best fit their operations is sufficient to meet USDA’s disease traceability goals in the event of an outbreak.” »
“We also note that the new rule covers only about 10 percent of the nation’s cattle herd – a percentage significantly below the level of participation that USDA previously said was necessary to achieve disease traceability,” Bullard added. “Not only do we believe this mandatory EID rule implemented under the Biden administration is unnecessary and illegal, we also believe it runs counter to President Trump’s efforts to end costly government regulations that force private businesses to incur unnecessary compliance costs that hurt their competitiveness. There is no doubt that this mandatory EID rule increases costs for livestock producers Americans. “
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) described the rule as a “significant step forward” in efforts to improve traceability and limit contagious animal diseases. APHIS described it as necessary for “rapid traceability” in the event of an outbreak, not only to limit the length of time farms are quarantined, but also to prevent more animals from getting sick and to incentivize ranchers and farmers to sell their products more quickly.
NCLA alleges in court documents that the EID rule is “arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)” and that APHIS and USDA have failed to “reasonably explain” why the rule is necessary when “the existing animal disease traceability framework has already proven effective and the rule only applies to one-tenth of the nation’s cattle herd.”
“Since the rule took effect almost a year ago,” said Kara Rollins, NCLA litigation attorney, “America’s ranchers and farmers have been forced to comply with its costly and unnecessary EID mandate. The rule is a classic example of bureaucratic convenience trumping reasoned decision-making. We look forward to seeing this case resolved on the merits.”
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, Click here.)
