Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO NEWS: Farmers seek High Court review of USDA racketeering case, (Mar 5, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Two pro se farmers have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a Fourth Circuit decision affirming summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Farm Service Agency, in a suit alleging that the two agencies and other individuals engaged in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) enterprise (Julian v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dkt. 14-1051).

Christopher and Renee Julian alleged that they moved to the country to develop a farm winery business in a rural HUD zone. After the Farm Service Agency denied the Julians a USDA Farm Ownership Loan, and after the Julians followed all administrative grievance processes, they filed suit, alleging that the USDA, the Farm Service Agency, and other individuals engaged in—in part—a RICO enterprise. The federal district court in Danville, Virginia denied jurisdiction with regard to the RICO tort allegations, and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, upholding the agencies’ use of Chevron deference for denying the loan application. According to the Julians, “The Courts’ granting of Chevron deference to the agency ‘enterprise’, upholding the agency’s decision[,] has achieved the very objective of the RICO enterprise complained of[,] eliminating damages caused by the torts and denying the opportunity for a jury to access the agency’s actions.”

In their petition, the Julians ask the Supreme Court: (1) whether a RICO enterprise operating within a federal agency is entitled to sovereign immunity and protected by provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act; (2) should a court grant Chevron deference to an administrative agency’s statutory interpretation in civil or criminal proceedings; and (3) whether appellants’ constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial are violated when a federal agency denies an appellant opportunity to present evidence of negligence, fraud, and discrimination, relevant to an agency decision, and judicial review is limited to review of the administrative record and the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 706.

The Julians argue that the Supreme Court should grant review in this case because the district court’s decision and the Fourth Circuit’s order affirming are “far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, which call for an exercise of this Courts’ decision and supervisory power”; because the lower courts’ decisions conflict with the Supreme Court’s and other appellate court’s decisions concerning RICO; and because the case asks multiple important questions of federal law that should be settled. In addition, the appellants argue that this case would give the Court an excellent opportunity to address whether federal agencies should be afforded Chevron deference in a civil and criminal context, and the case represents a long-overdue effort to utilize the private attorney privileges granted by Congress to a private citizen under the RICO Act.

Lastly, in relation to history and the implications of this case, the Julians argue, “The right to a jury trial in civil and criminal matters bound in the constitution and the separation of Judicial and executive powers have been usurped by Chevron deference wielded by a tyrannous, despotic, Government operated RICO enterprise in the executive branch of the U.S. Government.”

Companies: U.S. Department of Agriculture

News: RICO