Initiative 300 Suffers Defeat in Circuit Court
Center for Rural Affairs
The
Center for Rural Affairs is urging Nebraska Attorney General Jon
Bruning to continue the battle to protect Initiative 300, and what the
law has meant to family farmers, ranchers, rural communities and the
economic and social well-being throughout Nebraska for 24 years.
Last
Wednesday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith-Camp’s December 2005
decision that declared Initiative 300 in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.
Judge
Smith-Camp never held a trial to discern the evidence in the
case. She ruled that Initiative 300 is unconstitutional on its
face, essentially because it is inconvenient for out-of-state interests
to comply with the provision in Initiative 300 that requires that a
family member live on or operate the farm or ranch to qualify as an
allowed family farm or ranch corporation. The three judge panel
of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concurred.
“This is
a flawed ruling. This is what happens when the courts make
crucial decisions without holding a trial and hearing the facts of a
case,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for
Rural Affairs. “We believe that Initiative 300 should have its
day in court,” argued Hassebrook.
The
Circuit Court’s decision compounded another problem with the District
Court’s ruling: it’s wrong on the facts. Initiative 300 does not
distinguish between in-state and out-of-state corporations. For
example, a Montana rancher that works everyday on his Montana ranch
could qualify his operation as a family ranch corporation just as
easily as a Sandhills rancher, and having done so could place cattle in
Nebraska custom feedlots just like Nebraska ranchers.
Moreover,
the legal precedent established by this ruling is broad and dangerously
expansive. It could undermine a wide range of state laws and
dramatically diminish the power of states to control corporate power
and excess.
In his
appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nebraska Attorney
General Jon Bruning argued, “Initiative 300, Nebraska’s ban on
corporate farming, does not violate the commerce clause, nor does it
discriminate against out-of-state individuals or corporations.”
Blog For Iowa 
This decision will impact more than just Nebraska family farmers, ranchers and rural communities. The district court judge that decided the case said that because Initiative 300, Nebraska's anti-corporate farming law, made it inconvenient for an out of state corporation to own land or farm in Nebraska, which she judged to be a violation of the dorment commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Setting aside, for a moment, that she is wrong on the facts (the law makes it inconvenient, or impossible, for corporations to own land and farm – that is precisely the point – but makes no distinction between in-state and out of state corporations) – if you read her decision it becomes obvious that she could use the same logic for other state policy. Consider economic develpment policy for a moment. Are there state programs and incentives that favor in-state corporations (or even require relocating) over out of state? Wouldn't that be inconvenient for the out of state corporation?
LikeLike