The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a roundtable on April 21 focused on the increasing use of litigation and regulations affecting American farmers and ranchers. The event, titled “Farming on Trial: A Roundtable on the Growing Use of Lawfare Against American Agriculture,” featured testimony from individuals who have faced legal challenges in agriculture, as well as discussions about how court actions are shaping farm policy.
The committee examined how lawsuits and settlements are driving regulatory outcomes, often bypassing traditional lawmaking processes. Participants also discussed concerns about federal overreach, burdensome regulations that impact affordability, and rising compliance costs for those working in agriculture.
Marty Jackley, Attorney General of South Dakota, said: “One of the biggest concerns I have is a lawyer is the arguments that the United States made and [the] complete disregard for its trust responsibility. And ranchers indicated that trust lands, that involve ranchers and native Americans, they have no property interest, which is contrary to the law and contrary to the history and equally so on range units. And what a range unit is, is simply when you combine parcels of land to ultimately have a unit that it’s set up by the [Bureau of Indian Affairs], they charge a fee for a five-year lease on that. They ultimately determined and believed the United States that that also is not a property interest. And so, they put these ranchers basically in jeopardy of their farming operations by bad decisions. They did nothing to correct those decisions. They’ve used the civil courts to drag out litigation and ultimately disregarded long-established history of private property rights and tribal trust responsibilities.”
Shad Sullivan, Private Property Rights Committee Chair of R-CALF USA, described pressures from eminent domain related to energy infrastructure projects such as wind farms or transmission corridors: “There is a growing wave of eminent domain tied to energy infrastructure… In Colorado, my own family was forced to settle with Xcel for pennies on the dollar just to avoid crushing legal costs.” Sullivan added concerns about environmental organizations influencing policy through lawsuits funded by federal money.
Margaret Byfield, Executive Director of American Stewards of Liberty shared her experience with government claims over water rights after purchasing a Nevada ranch: “We purchased a ranch in central Nevada in 1978… The very first thing that happened to us is the [U.S. Forest Service] filed a claim over every one of our water rights…” She argued this led to forced removal from grazing land due to regulatory enforcement.
Chairman James Comer asked about ways Congress could address excessive use of eminent domain against farmers. Jackley responded: “There are instances when there has to be eminent domain for public good but there needs protections for its abuses… Not every landowner can afford… an expert… those protections were necessary.”
Other topics included debates over definitions related to water rights under federal rules like Waters of the United States (WOTUS), impacts from consent decrees known as “sue-and-settle” arrangements raising farming costs; as well as issues with laws like Equal Access To Justice Act enabling large nonprofit groups’ repeated litigation against agencies while having their legal fees reimbursed by taxpayers.
Byfield said regarding this act: “Yeah absolutely. That Equal Access To Justice Act is how they pay their bills… if we can start figuring out some ways to cut off that money—that would be very helpful.”
Participants called for reforms aimed at protecting private property rights so family-owned farms can continue operating successfully.
