Fabrizius v. United States Department of Agriculture
129 F.4th 1226
| 10th Cir. | 2025Background
- Fabrizius Livestock LLC, owned by Jason Fabrizius, is a Colorado horse dealer selling horses, often for slaughter, with many horses kept in conditions susceptible to disease.
- The USDA regulates the interstate transport of horses and requires specific documentation (owner-shipper certificates, Interstate Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (ICVIs), and disease testing).
- Fabrizius was cited by the USDA for three violation categories: (1) transporting 14 horses without owner/shipper certificates; (2) selling 50 horses across state lines without ICVIs in 19 transactions; and (3) selling one horse infected with equine infectious anemia (EIA) without required diligence.
- An initial USDA ALJ found Fabrizius responsible and imposed a $210,000 civil fine; a USDA Judicial Officer affirmed both liability and penalty.
- Fabrizius challenged both the constitutionality and application of the regulations, as well as the amount and proportionality of the fine.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed and denied Fabrizius's petition, upholding the USDA's findings and penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of § 86.5(a) (Definition of "persons responsible") | Regulation is unconstitutionally vague and does not give fair warning | Regulation uses plain, common terms; applies clearly to sellers in these facts | Not vague; provides adequate notice; applies to Fabrizius as seller |
| Due Process Notice of Liability | No notice or agency education that seller is responsible for ICVIs | Ignorance of law not an excuse; regulation and its public process suffice | Due process satisfied; no requirement for individualized actual notice |
| Agency’s Finding of Responsibility | Sellers should not be "responsible" once buyers take possession | Causing interstate movement suffices for responsibility | Agency reasonably interpreted regulation; sellers are responsible |
| Size/Fairness of Fine | Fine is arbitrary, capricious, or excessive under the Eighth Amendment | Fine considered required statutory factors, is proportional, below max allowed | Fine is not arbitrary or capricious; not excessive under Eighth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (void-for-vagueness doctrine and due process)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (Eighth Amendment excessive fines proportionality test)
- Vill. of Hoffman Ests. v. Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (less strict vagueness standard for economic/civil regulations)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (facial vagueness; legitimate sweep standard)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (general standards in laws can be constitutional)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (due process and regulatory clarity)