Hettinga v. United States
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26968
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005 (MREA) challenged as bill of attainder, equal protection, and due process bySarah Farms producers; MREA targeted producer-handlers in order to close a regulatory loophole; AMAA milk marketing orders regulate payments to producers via a producer settlement fund; plaintiffs operate Sarah Farms (Order 131) and GH Dairy (California sales) with distinct regulatory exposure; USDA Rule previously proposed to subject producer-handlers to pricing/pooling; MREA subsections M-N extend direct pricing/pooling to certain producer-handlers and exclude some regions (Nevada, Pacific Northwest)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MREA constitutes a bill of attainder | Hettinga | U.S. | Not a bill of attainder due to lack of specificity and punishment |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge Subsection N | Plaintiffs have injury traceable to MREA | Any injury traceable to USDA Rule; standing lacking for MREA challenge | Standing present; challenged action directly affects plaintiffs" rights under MREA |
| Whether MREA violates equal protection | MREA irrationally singles out producer-handlers | Classification rationally related to maintaining orderly milk markets | Rational basis review upheld; no equal protection violation |
| Whether MREA violates due process by foreclosing judicial review of USDA Rule | MREA denies ability to challenge USDA regulations | No protected liberty interest and no final merits decision foreclosed | Due process claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (bill-of-attainder specificity and punishment analysis)
- BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 162 F.3d 678 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (specificity and punishment prongs for bill of attainder)
- American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (U.S. 1950) (past beliefs as designation of conduct—occupational bans)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (U.S. 1984) (standing requires injury traceable to challenged action)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausible claims, not just possible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: plausible grounds for relief)
- Shamrock Farms Co. v. Veneman, 146 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1998) (antitrust/equal protection context in agricultural regulation)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1955) (legislative enactments need not be perfectly rational to be valid)