Case: 19-70115, 07/30/2020, ID: 11772248, DktEntry: 176-1, Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-70115
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
`Respondents,
`
`and
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
`Intervenors-Respondents.
`
`On Petition for Review of Agency Action
`of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL COTTON
`COUNCIL OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT
`GROWERS, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, AND
`NATIONAL SORGHUM PRODUCERS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
`CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bartholomew J. Kempf
`Edmund S. Sauer
`BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
`1600 Division Street, Suite 700
`Nashville, TN 37203
`(615) 252-2374
`esauer@bradley.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-70115
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
`Respondents,
`
`and
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
`Intervenors-Respondents.
`
`On Petition for Review of Agency Action
`of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL COTTON
`COUNCIL OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT
`GROWERS, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, AND
`NATIONAL SORGHUM PRODUCERS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
`CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bartholomew J. Kempf
`Edmund S. Sauer
`BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
`1600 Division Street, Suite 700
`Nashville, TN 37203
`(615) 252-2374
`esauer@bradley.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 07/30/2020, ID: 11772248, DktEntry: 176-1, Page 2 of 6
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(b) and Ninth Circuit Rule
`
`
`
`29-2, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association,
`
`National Cotton Council of America, National Association of Wheat Growers,
`
`National Corn Growers Association, and National Sorghum Producers (together,
`
`“the Growers”) respectfully request leave to file the attached amicus curiae brief in
`
`support of the Petitions for Rehearing En Banc filed by Intervenors-Respondents
`
`Monsanto Company, BASF Corporation, and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
`
`Company. The proposed amicus brief is attached as Exhibit 1. In support of this
`
`Motion, the Growers state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The Growers are six national trade associations that represent farmers,
`
`ranchers, and their families nationwide. The Growers’ soybean, corn, wheat,
`
`sorghum, cotton, and other crops provide the United States and the world with food,
`
`fuel, feed, and fiber.
`
`2.
`
`Founded in 1919, the American Farm Bureau Federation (“AFBF”) is
`
`a voluntary general farm organization formed to protect, promote, and represent the
`
`business, economic, social, and educational interests of American farmers and
`
`ranchers. AFBF represents nearly six million member families through its state and
`
`county Farm Bureau organizations in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
`
`3.
`
`Founded in 1920, the American Soybean Association (“ASA”) is a
`
`national, private, not-for-profit trade association representing U.S. soybean growers
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 07/30/2020, ID: 11772248, DktEntry: 176-1, Page 3 of 6
`
`on domestic and international issues of importance to the soybean industry. ASA
`
`represents the interests of more than 300,000 soybean farmers nationwide.
`
`4.
`
`Founded in 1938, the National Cotton Council of America (“NCC”) is
`
`the trade association for the U.S. cotton industry, representing the seven segments
`
`of the raw cotton industry: producers, ginners, warehousers, merchants, cottonseed
`
`processors and merchandisers, cooperatives, and textile manufacturers. NCC’s
`
`mission is to ensure the ability of all U.S. cotton segments to compete effectively
`
`and profitably in the raw cotton, oilseeds, and manufactured textile product markets
`
`at home and abroad.
`
`5.
`
`In 1950, a handful of wheat growers from across the country formed
`
`the National Association of Wheat Growers (“NAWG”) to work toward common
`
`solutions and make decisions for the future of America’s wheat producers. Decades
`
`later, the NAWG continues to focus on the policies of the U.S. government that
`
`affect the livelihoods of U.S. wheat producers as the primary representative in
`
`Washington, D.C. for wheat growers, working with a team of 20 state wheat grower
`
`organizations to benefit America’s wheat producers.
`
`6.
`
`Founded in 1957, the National Corn Growers Association is the trade
`
`association for U.S. corn growers. It represents the interests of more than 300,000
`
`corn growers and works with 49 affiliated state organizations to create and increase
`
`opportunities for corn growers.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 07/30/2020, ID: 11772248, DktEntry: 176-1, Page 4 of 6
`
`7.
`
`Founded in 1955 to increase demand for grain sorghum, National
`
`Sorghum Producers became the voice of the sorghum industry. For over 60 years,
`
`National Sorghum Producers has represented sorghum farmers nationwide on
`
`legislative and regulatory issues impacting the sorghum industry, and its mission is
`
`to lead positive change for sorghum farmers through effective policy and
`
`relationships.
`
`8.
`
`Growers have direct and immediate interests in the Panel Opinion’s
`
`vacatur of the registrations of the Dicamba Products. In particular, the Panel Opinion
`
`adversely affects the predictability, efficiency, and sustainability of Growers’
`
`farming operations and their ability to rely on predictable and science-based
`
`regulatory decision-making and governmental oversight.
`
`9.
`
`If left undisturbed, the Panel Opinion’s unprecedented weakening of
`
`Rule 15(a)(2)(C)’s notice requirement would leave the Growers and other interested
`
`parties guessing as to whether an administrative order is subject to invalidation on
`
`judicial review.
`
`10. Likewise, the Panel Opinion’s misconception and misapplication of
`
`FIFRA’s substantial evidence standard conflicts with existing law and jeopardizes
`
`the Growers’ ability to rely on predictable and expertise-driven regulatory decisions.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 07/30/2020, ID: 11772248, DktEntry: 176-1, Page 5 of 6
`
`11. The Growers’ first-hand experience places them in a unique position to
`
`provide the Court with helpful practical information about the importance of these
`
`legal issues.
`
`12. Counsel for amici curiae attempted to obtain consent from all parties
`
`before filing this motion. Respondent EPA and Intervenors-Respondents Monsanto
`
`Company, EID, and BASF all consent to the filing of the brief. Petitioners have
`
`advised the undersigned that they take no position on the motion.
`
`13. Accordingly, the Growers respectfully request leave to file the amicus
`
`curiae brief attached to this motion.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Edmund S. Sauer
`Bartholomew J. Kempf
`Edmund S. Sauer
`Kimberly M. Ingram
`Jeffrey W. Sheehan
`BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
`1600 Division Street, Suite 700
`Nashville, TN 37203
`(615) 252-2374
`esauer@bradley.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 07/30/2020, ID: 11772248, DktEntry: 176-1, Page 6 of 6
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I certify that pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A)
`
`and 32(g)(1), this motion has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface, 14-
`
`point Times New Roman font, and contains 676 words.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Edmund S. Sauer
`Edmund S. Sauer
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 30, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
`
`of such filing to all registered CM/ECF users.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Edmund S. Sauer
`Edmund S. Sauer
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
