Agri-Pulse: USDA’s court system is unconstitutional
We Americans love to have our day in court. We go to court to challenge speeding tickets. We use the accountability of personal injury lawsuits to help ensure that businesses are acting responsibly. We sue the government when we’re denied essential rights. We love to watch justice prevail in movies like “My Cousin Vinny” or “A Few Good Men.” Even Santa Claus had his day in court in “A Miracle on 34th Street.”
But this coveted day in court is often denied to America’s farmers, ranchers, and horsemen. Instead, the Department of Agriculture, America’s primary agricultural regulator, acts as prosecutor, judge, and jury.
The federal government extensively regulates the agricultural industry in America. Animal dealers and exhibitors must obtain federal licenses and adhere to federal regulations. Farmers and ranchers are subject to federal fair competition regulations. Many are compelled to pay “fees” to support commodity-specific advertising campaigns. The production and handling of organic products are tightly controlled. USDA controls how many products—apples, raisins, etc.—may be sold in the market. Even Tennessee walking horses are subject to federal inspection before participating in horse shows.
Many regulatory schemes include significant penalties for violators. The penalties can include license revocations, industry bans, and significant fines that resemble criminal sanctions. Normally, when the government seeks to take away one’s livelihood or impose a monetary fine, the issues must be decided in a courtroom with an independent judge and a jury of one’s peers. In other words, people accused of violating the law get their day in court.
The same is not true for those regulated by the USDA. In many of our agricultural laws, Congress decided that courts were not needed to impose punishments on farmers, ranchers, and horsemen. Instead, USDA decides for itself whether you have violated its regulations and imposes whatever penalty it sees fit.
The odd part about this structure is that USDA still set up its own internal process that resembles a court system to hear and resolve its enforcement cases. A USDA administrative law judge holds a court-like hearing at which you can defend yourself. And you can appeal the ALJ’s decision to the USDA’s Judicial Officer.
But there is a critical difference. The judges in these hearings all work for USDA – the same government agency that is bringing the charges against you. There is no independent decision-maker to consider the evidence and arguments and come to a decision on your guilt and the penalty. The secretary of agriculture herself gets to handpick the judges.
Worse still, the fact that the USDA can seek fines in these cases means that the accused should have the right to a jury trial. The Constitution’s Seventh Amendment guarantees it. The jury serves as a critical check against government overreach and abuse. But no jury is available in the USDA’s pseudo-court system. As a result, there is nothing to stop the USDA from pursuing and imposing unreasonable fines.
Fortunately, though, the effort to roll back these unconstitutional agency tribunals is well underway. Last year, in a case called SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court struck down the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of imposing fines for securities fraud itself without a jury trial in federal court. The Court explained that Congress could not evade the Seventh Amendment’s jury trial guarantee by assigning legal claims to agencies rather than to courts.
But Jarkesy did not go far enough in ending these agency adjudications. They continue within the USDA and in many other federal agencies. More legal challenges are needed to fully restore the constitutional rights to a jury trial and a neutral court. That is why Pacific Legal Foundation is currently challenging the constitutionality of the USDA’s adjudication process in two cases on behalf of an owner and a trainer of Tennessee walking horses accused of violating the Horse Protection Act.
While that fight continues, agricultural workers and businesses remain stuck with the USDA’s internal administrative process. But through legal challenges to this unconstitutional scheme, they can work towards a system in which all of America’s farmers, ranchers, and horsemen get their day in court.
This op-ed was originally published in Agri-Pulse on January 21, 2026.
