Jones v. Gale
| Decision Date | 13 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-1308.,06-1308. |
| Citation | 470 F.3d 1261 |
| Parties | Jim JONES; Terrence M. Schumacher Shad Dahlgren; Harold G. Rickertsen; Todd Ehler; Robert E. Beck, III, Appellees, v. John GALE, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Nebraska; Jon Bruning, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Nebraska, Appellants. Organization for Competitive Markets; R-Calf USA; Oregon Livestock Producers Association; Spokane County Cattle Producers; Icon; The Independent Beef Association of North Dakota; Montana Cattleman's Association; Nevada Livestock Association; State of Minnesota; State of Iowa; State of Missouri; State of North Dakota; State of West Virginia; Nebraska Farmer Union; The Center for Rural Affairs The Nebraska Grange; Women Involved in Farm Economics The Nebraska Catholic Conference; The American Corn Growers of Nebraska; Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest Sierra Club; The Great Plains Environmental Law Center; Nebraska Environmental Action Coalition; Michael Jacobson; Nebraska League of Rural Voters; Nebraskans for Peace; National Farmers Union; National Family Farm Coalition; American Corn Growers; Minnesota Farmers Union; Land Stewardship Project; North Dakota Farmers Union; Dakota Resource Council; South Dakota Farmers Union; Dakota Rural Action; Iowa Farmers Union; Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement; Missouri Farmers Union; Missouri Rural Crisis Center; AR Farmers Union; Campaign For Family Farms; Western Organization of Resource Councils; Federation of Southern Cooperatives; Illinois Farmers Union; Illinois Stewardship Alliance; IN Farmers Union; Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana; Powder River Basin Resource Council; KS Farmers Union; WI Farmers Union; OH Farmers Union; MI Farmers Union; Pennsylvania Farmers Union; Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Montana Farmers Union; Utah Farmers Union; Texas Farmers Union; Alaska Farmers Union; Oregon Farmers Union; WA Farmers Union; California Farmers Union, Amici on behalf of Appellants. Nebraska Bankers Association; Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc.; The Nebraska Realtors Association; South Dakota Farm Bureau, Amici on Behalf of Appellees. United States of America, Amicus on Behalf of Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Katherine J. Spohn, Asst. Atty. General, argued, Lincoln, NE , for appellants.
L. Steven Grasz, argued, Omaha, NE (Thomas H. Dalik, Michael S. Degan, Rebecca B. Gregory, Blackwell & Sanders, Omaha, NE; David A. Jarecke, Crosby & Guenzel, Lincoln, NE, Stephen D. Mossman, Mattson & Ricketts, Lincoln, NE, on the brief), for appellees.
Michael C. Stumo, Domina Law Group, Omaha, NE, Thomas K. Overton, Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN, Robert Vail Broom, Jeffery R. Kirkpatrick, McHenry & Haszard, Patricia A. Knapp, University of Nebraska College of Law, Lincoln, NE, Steven M. Virgil, Community Economic Development Clinic, Omaha, NE, Lynn Ann Hayes, Karen R. Krub, Jessica A. Shoemaker, Farmers Legal Action Group, St. Paul, MN, for Amici on behalf of Appellants.
Robert J. Hallstrom, Brandt & Horan, Syracuse, NE, Ronald J. Sedlacek, Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, Lincoln, NE, for Amici on Behalf of Appellees.
Jessica Dunsay Silver, Sarah E. Harrington, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division-Appellate Section Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellees.
Before ARNOLD, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs, six people who own various interests in Nebraska farm and ranch land operations, filed this action against Nebraska's secretary of state and attorney general in their official capacities (State Officials). The plaintiffs claimed that Initiative 300, which voters adopted as part of the state constitution in 1982, see Neb. Const. art. XII, § 8, violates the commerce clause, privileges and immunities clause, and equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court1 granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their commerce clause and ADA claims, and granted summary judgment to the State Officials on the remaining claims. The State Officials appeal, and we affirm the district court's judgment that the amendment based on Initiative 300 is unconstitutional because it violates the dormant commerce clause.
Initiative 300 prohibits corporations or syndicates (non-family-owned limited partnerships) from acquiring an interest in "real estate used for farming or ranching in [Nebraska]" or "engag[ing] in farming or ranching," with certain exceptions. See Neb. Const. art. XII, § 8. The initiative originated as a constitutional amendment proposed through the initiative process and appeared as a ballot question on Nebraska's 1982 general election ballot. The Nebraska Attorney General prepared a ballot title and explanatory statement for Initiative 300. See Neb. Stat. § 32-1410(1). The title read: "Shall a constitutional prohibition be created prohibiting ownership of Nebraska farm or ranch land by any corporation, domestic or foreign, which is not a Nebraska family farm corporation ... ?" An explanatory statement defines the effect of a vote for and against a measure. Id. The explanatory statement presented to Nebraska voters for Initiative 300 read: The voters adopted Initiative 300, and it became part of the Nebraska constitution upon the issuance of a proclamation by the governor in 1982.
The Initiative defines a "family farm or ranch corporation," which is specifically excepted from the initiative's restrictions, as "a corporation engaged in farming or ranching or the ownership of agricultural land, in which the majority of the voting stock is held by members of a family ... at least one of whom is a person residing on or actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm or ranch." Neb. Const. art. XII, § 8. In addition, an exemption from the corporate farming ban is provided, inter alia, to former "family farm corporations" for a period of fifty years after they cease to meet the criteria for that designation, provided that majority ownership of the corporation remains within the family. Id.
The State Officials contend that none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the commerce clause claim and therefore the district court erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction. A plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, Hoekel v. Plumbing Planning Corp., 20 F.3d 839, 840 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 974, 115 S.Ct. 448, 130 L.Ed.2d 358 (1994), for which standing is a prerequisite, Faibisch v. University of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 801 (8th Cir. 2002). To establish standing, a plaintiff is required to show that he or she had South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583, 591 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1037, 124 S.Ct. 2095, 158 L.Ed.2d 723 (2004).
We review the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs had standing de novo. St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Gaertner, 439 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 2006). Although the district court concluded that all of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the commerce clause claim, we have said previously that "where one plaintiff establishes standing to sue, the standing of other plaintiffs is immaterial" to jurisdiction. National Wildlife Fed'n v. Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 955 F.2d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 620 n. 15, 108 S.Ct. 2562, 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988)).
Plaintiff Terrence Schumacher, a resident of Boulder, Colorado, has an ownership interest in Nebraska farmland in five counties. Neither he nor any of his relatives reside on his farmland and he does not live close enough to the land to perform the day-to-day labor and manage it. Mr. Schumacher would like to transfer his farmland to a limited liability entity, which would, inter alia, allow for improved fiscal planning and operational management of the farmland as an operating unit and provide more favorable options for estate planning. Initiative 300 precludes Mr. Schumacher from creating a limited liability farm operation because he does not meet the conditions of the family farm exemption, and as a result he has suffered and continues to suffer economic loss based on reduced fiscal and operational management efficiencies, marketing opportunities, and borrowing power, as well as increased administration expenses and federal estate taxes. Because Mr. Schumacher cannot qualify for the family farm exemption, he is exposed to personal liability for the debts, obligations, contracts, and torts related to his Nebraska farmland.
The State Officials acknowledge that Mr. Schumacher may not purchase farmland on a limited liability basis unless he or a member of his family resides on the farmland or is engaged in the farm's day-to-day labor and management. But they argue that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daghlian v. Devry University, Inc.
... ... , even when such legislation also burdens some in-state interests or includes some out-of-state interests in the favored classification." Jones v. Gale, 405 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1081 (D.Neb.2005) (collecting cases), aff'd, 470 F.3d 1261, 1266 ... Page 1244 ... (8th Cir.2006) ("[T]he State ... ...
-
Heffner v. Murphy
...in the state while exempting from the restriction corporations owned by Nebraska farmers or their families. ( Id. at 63–64 (citing 470 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir.2006))). In that case, the court found that the initiative was facially discriminatory because it prohibited ownership of farms by corpor......
-
Birchansky v. Clabaugh
..." ‘where one plaintiff establishes standing to sue, the standing of other plaintiffs is immaterial’ to jurisdiction." Jones v. Gale , 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv. , 955 F.2d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir. 1992) ); see a......
-
Keller v. City of Fremont
...of a reasonable interpretation which supports its constitutionality, the court must accord the law that meaning.” Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1268 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Minn. v. State of Minn., 910 F.2d 479, 482 (8th Cir.1990)); see also Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S.......
-
Issuer Banks Claims In Target Data Breach Litigation Survive Motion To Dismiss
...does not impermissibly impose or result in differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. See Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1267 (8th Cir. As to Target's second argument for dismissal of the MPCSA claim, Judge Magnuson agreed that "there is no dispute that the hacke......
-
Nebraska's Corporate-farming Law and Discriminatory Effects Under the Dormant Commerce Clause
...4. Winkfield F. Twyman, Jr., Beyond Purpose: Addressing State Discrimination in Interstate Commerce, 46 S.C. L. REV. 381, 382 (1995). 5. 470 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 6. There are, of course, many other areas of rural law and policy that could be preempted by Congressional silence under the DCC d......
-
Don't You Dare Live Here: the Constitutionality of the Anti-immigrant Employment and Housing Ordinances at Issue in Keller v. City of Fremont
...words "No against proposed Ordinance No. 5165" following said proposal. Fremont Ballot Initiative, supra note 44. 368. See Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1271 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that it could not conclude that invalid portion was not an inducement for the rest of the initiative); Dugga......
-
FEE SIMPLE FAILURES: RURAL LANDSCAPES AND RACE.
...of Amici Curiae Nat'l Farmers Union et al. in Support of Appellants and in Support of Reversal of the Judgment Below at 3, Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 2006) (No. (229.) See, e.g., Juan F. Perea, The Echoes of Slavery: Recognizing the Racist Origins of the Agricultural and Domesti......