Bartlett v. United States Department of Agriculture
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11235
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Producers are 38 corn/soybean farmers in Iowa alleging miscalculation of SURE Program payments for 2008 under 7 U.S.C. § 1531.
- Defendants are USDA entities and Iowa FSA officials responsible for administering SURE and calculating payments.
- SURE provides disaster payments; payments are 60% of the difference between the SURE guarantee and actual farm revenue, with the SURE guarantee based on a price election.
- Administrative review is available through county/state committees and NAD, but only NAD final decisions are reviewable by district court; some determinations are not appealable as to general applicability.
- Producers challenged the use of RMA price election figures over their crop insurance price elections; they did not exhaust administrative remedies before suing.
- District court dismissed for failure to exhaust; court held exhaustion not excused by futility, legal-question, or equitable-estoppel theories; on appeal, only exhaustion-equitable estoppel is argued by Producers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 6912(e) exhaustion is jurisdictional. | Producers claim exhaustion is excused. | Exhaustion is nonjurisdictional but required. | Exhaustion not jurisdictional; review possible. |
| Whether futility excuses exhaustion. | NAD lacks authority; relief on merits impractical. | NAD and NAD Director determine appealability; not futile. | Futility not established; exhaustion not excused. |
| Whether the legal-question exception applies. | Price-election issue is a legal question for courts. | Agency expertise governs appealability; NAD handles it. | Legal-question exception not satisfied; exhaustion required. |
| Whether equitable estoppel can bar exhaustion against the Government. | Government misconduct estops exhaustion. | No affirmative misconduct; estoppel fails. | Estoppel claim fails; exhaustion defense preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 440 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion as nonjurisdictional, codified exhaustion doctrine)
- Salfi v. United States, 422 U.S. 749 (Supreme Court 1975) (exhaustion principle favored; nonjurisdictional)
- Deaf Smith Cnty. Grain Processors, Inc. v. Glickman, 162 F.3d 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (agency review pathways and final agency actions)
- Clason v. Johanns, 438 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirmative misconduct standard; negligent statements insufficient)
- Wang v. Att’y Gen., 823 F.2d 1273 (8th Cir. 1987) (equitable estoppel against government subject to stringent requirements)