Meyers v. United States
2010 U.S. Claims LEXIS 959
| Fed. Cl. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs own two Oregon cattle ranches and seek Tucker Act damages for CSP payments that would have been available if they had enrolled; CSP is a Congress-created, NRCS-administered program with tiers, base payments, cost-sharing, and enhanced payments.
- NRCS limited CSP participation annually by designated priority watersheds due to spending caps and technical-assistance limits; plaintiffs’ properties are outside any designated watershed, so they did not enroll.
- 2002 Farm Bill created CSP; 2008 Farm Bill replaced CSP and restricted new contracts while allowing existing contracts to continue.
- Plaintiffs allege Counts I–II CSP violations (money damages for CSP participation) and Count III Takings Clause, but plaintiff-s initial filings did not show enrollment or a presently due payment.
- The court granted RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions, concluding CSP is not money-mandating, plaintiffs lack present entitlement to CSP payments, and no taking occurred; Counts I–II dismissed without prejudice and Count III dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is CSP money-mandating under Tucker Act? | CSP statute/regs mandate payments to eligible producers. | CSP grants NRCS wide discretion; not money-mandating. | No; CSP, as read with regulations, is not money-mandating. |
| Do CSP statute/regulations provide a presently due entitlement to payments? | CSP provides a clear entitlement to payments for those meeting criteria. | Discretion in setting payments and eligibility prevents a presently due entitlement. | No; combination of statute and regulations yields discretionary payments, not a guaranteed entitlement. |
| Do plaintiffs have a cognizable Takings Clause property right to CSP payments? | Monetary benefits under CSP are compensable property rights. | No cognizable property right in CSP benefits without a contracted right. | No; plaintiffs lack a property right in CSP payments. |
| Can the CSP regulations be challenged as invalid or be deemed money-mandating via Chevron/Samish frameworks? | Regulations create entitlement and must be invalidated if inconsistent with statute. | Regulations reasonable under Chevron; not mandating under Grav/ Doe; Samish II analysis fails. | Regulations valid under Chevron; CSP not money-mandating under Samish II. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc discussion on Tucker Act jurisdiction and money-mandating sources)
- Grav v. United States, 886 F.2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (money-mandating standard when government has no discretion to pay or to refuse payment)
- Doe v. United States, 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (no money-mandating when government has complete discretion over payment)
- Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (three-prong test for discretionary-but-money-mandating statutes (Samish II))
- Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (delegation to agency to fill gaps; Chevron deference framework)