Thought this Western Producer article would be of interest. I noticed how unusual it was for a district judge to stop a federal rule. Also note that the nomination of Cebull was unususal in that he was nominated by both a Republican Senator (Burns) and a Democrat (Baucus). Both Montana senators are opposed to trade with Canada. Baucus was co-sponsor of the Senate resolution to overturn the USDA rule and Burns was the 10th senator to sign the resolution. These Montana Senators are on record as being against Canadian beef of any age entering the United States.
http://www.producer.com/subscriber/articles/2005/0310/news/20050310news11.html
One judge stops the USDA
this document web posted: Wednesday March 9, 2005 20050310p5
By Michael Raine
Saskatoon newsroom
A federal court judge from one of the least populated states in the United States has stopped the U.S. government from implementing a much debated and analyzed trade rule.
On March 2, judge Richard Cebull issued an injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing a rule that was to allow the importation of Canadian ruminants for the feeding and slaughter trades.
"It is rare for a single, federal court judge to stop a federal rule or law from coming into place," said Larry Howell of the University of Montana Law School.
Normally when federal court judges grant an injunction that stops a federal law, it is because they feel it might contravene the U.S. constitution.
Howell said Cebull's decision is unusual because it appears not to be based on constitutional matters but on American cattle producers' market security and food safety concerns.
Cebull is one of 28 regional judges and one of two in Montana. He was among president George Bush's first judicial appointees, nominated by U.S. senators Burns and Baucus in 2001.
His nomination was unusual because Republican Conrad Burns and Democrat Max Baucus agreed on his appointment and jointly petitioned the president and senate for his approval. Despite sitting on opposite sides of the Senate, they each have supported anti-Canadian trade actions throughout their political careers and last week both men voted against the March 7 resumption of live ruminant trade with Canada.
Cebull's injunction, ahead of a trial, may be overturned by the court of appeals in San Francisco if one of its three-judge panels decides that the Montana judge erred in his decision or in law.
If the USDA successfully appeals the ruling for the injunction, Howell said the border-opening rule would likely come into force as it was intended.
"That could happen in as soon as a couple of months," he said.
R-CALF and USDA would then be sent back to Cebull for a trial in his Montana court. At this point R-CALF would have the opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that body could choose not to hear the case.
"The court of appeals must hear it," said Howell.
If the appeals court upheld Cebull's injunction, the USDA would also be required to go to trial in his court and the injunction would remain in place until he rendered his decision or a settlement was made.
Cebull's decision after a trial could then be appealed once again in the court of appeals in San Francisco.
Howell said generally if judges grant an injunction before a trial, even though they would not have heard all of the evidence, it is taken as a sign by lawyers for both sides that the judge will tend to rule in favour of the plaintiffs.
U.S. federal court judges generally remain on the bench until retirement. Cebull is 61.
http://www.producer.com/subscriber/articles/2005/0310/news/20050310news11.html
One judge stops the USDA
this document web posted: Wednesday March 9, 2005 20050310p5
By Michael Raine
Saskatoon newsroom
A federal court judge from one of the least populated states in the United States has stopped the U.S. government from implementing a much debated and analyzed trade rule.
On March 2, judge Richard Cebull issued an injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing a rule that was to allow the importation of Canadian ruminants for the feeding and slaughter trades.
"It is rare for a single, federal court judge to stop a federal rule or law from coming into place," said Larry Howell of the University of Montana Law School.
Normally when federal court judges grant an injunction that stops a federal law, it is because they feel it might contravene the U.S. constitution.
Howell said Cebull's decision is unusual because it appears not to be based on constitutional matters but on American cattle producers' market security and food safety concerns.
Cebull is one of 28 regional judges and one of two in Montana. He was among president George Bush's first judicial appointees, nominated by U.S. senators Burns and Baucus in 2001.
His nomination was unusual because Republican Conrad Burns and Democrat Max Baucus agreed on his appointment and jointly petitioned the president and senate for his approval. Despite sitting on opposite sides of the Senate, they each have supported anti-Canadian trade actions throughout their political careers and last week both men voted against the March 7 resumption of live ruminant trade with Canada.
Cebull's injunction, ahead of a trial, may be overturned by the court of appeals in San Francisco if one of its three-judge panels decides that the Montana judge erred in his decision or in law.
If the USDA successfully appeals the ruling for the injunction, Howell said the border-opening rule would likely come into force as it was intended.
"That could happen in as soon as a couple of months," he said.
R-CALF and USDA would then be sent back to Cebull for a trial in his Montana court. At this point R-CALF would have the opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that body could choose not to hear the case.
"The court of appeals must hear it," said Howell.
If the appeals court upheld Cebull's injunction, the USDA would also be required to go to trial in his court and the injunction would remain in place until he rendered his decision or a settlement was made.
Cebull's decision after a trial could then be appealed once again in the court of appeals in San Francisco.
Howell said generally if judges grant an injunction before a trial, even though they would not have heard all of the evidence, it is taken as a sign by lawyers for both sides that the judge will tend to rule in favour of the plaintiffs.
U.S. federal court judges generally remain on the bench until retirement. Cebull is 61.
Comment