899 F.3d 395
5th Cir.2018Background
- The Agricultural Act of 2014 amended 7 U.S.C. § 1508(g)(4) to allow farmers to elect to exclude certain low-production years from Actual Production History (APH) used to set crop-insurance yields.
- Subsection (g)(4)(A) states the paragraph “shall apply” for the 2001 and subsequent crop years; the exclusion rule was added as subparagraph (g)(4)(C).
- The FCIC (supervised by the Risk Management Agency) had to compile county-level actuarial data to determine which years qualified for exclusion, but it had not finished compiling all data in time for the 2015 crop year.
- The FCIC issued guidance allowing exclusions only where actuarial documents authorized them and notified approved insurers that exclusions were not yet authorized for some crops/county combinations; insurers denied exclusion requests for Texas winter-wheat farmers for 2015.
- Farmers administratively challenged the denials; the National Appeals Division director deferred to the agency under Chevron, but the district court reversed, holding the statutory text made exclusions immediately available for 2015. The FCIC appealed and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1508(g)(4)(C) exclusion was immediately available for 2015 | The statute’s (g)(4)(A) "shall apply" language makes the entire paragraph, including the exclusion, effective for 2001+ crop years; thus exclusions were available for 2015 | The statute is ambiguous because (1) effective date differs from implementation date and (2) FCIC may delay implementation until it has "sufficient actuarial data" per §1508(a)(1) | Held for plaintiffs: the plain text makes §1508(g)(4) immediately applicable; Chevron deference not reached because the statute is unambiguous |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for agency deference when statute is ambiguous)
- Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395 (1991) (default rule that a law takes effect on enactment absent contrary direction)
- BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (2004) (do not consult legislative history when statutory text is clear)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def., 138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) (legislative history cannot override clear statutory language)
- Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (reinforces limits on reliance on legislative history where text is clear)
- Doyle v. Shalala, 62 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 1995) (explaining Chevron step analysis)
- Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Babbitt, 73 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1995) (agency resource constraints do not excuse compliance with statutory deadlines)
- Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018) (illustrates de novo review standard under APA)