Oct. 4, 2025:
On Monday (Sept. 29, 2025), a federal district court in South Dakota ordered that ranchers and their ranch organizations can proceed with their lawsuit, filed on their behalf by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenging the lawfulness of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) new rule requiring electronically readable (EID) eartags for certain cattle and bison transported across state lines, rather than already-in-place, efficient means of cattle identification.
In its opinion and order, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, Western Division, denied the USDA’s motion to dismiss the ranchers’ claims based on lack of standing. It further denied the USDA’s request to strike portions of the ranchers’ claims implicating a recent Supreme Court ruling the ranchers assert clarifies the USDA is not entitled to deference when citing a broad statute to justify its action of mandating EID eartags, and their claim that the USDA acted unlawfully by failing to establish that the agency’s mandatory EID eartag scheme was necessary.
“The court’s decision is an important first step in this litigation. By rejecting the USDA’s arguments, the court has determined that this case can proceed to the merits. A key question as this case moves forward is whether the EID mandate is necessary and whether the agency acted reasonably in issuing it. We believe the answer to both those inquiries is ‘no,’” said Kara Rollins, senior litigation counsel for NCLA.
“We are pleased that the court has determined our case is worthy of proceeding on to the next phase of litigation. However, because this case involves a federal agency regulation implemented during the Biden administration that imposes an unnecessary and costly burden on America’s cattle farmers and ranchers, we believe this mandate should be targeted for elimination by the new Trump administration,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.
The ranchers and ranch organizations represented by NCLA in this case include South Dakota ranchers Kenny and Roxie Fox and Rick and Theresa Fox, R-CALF USA, the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, and the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance.
Oct. 2, 2025:
The U.S. District Court for the Fourth District of South Dakota denied much of the USDA’s motion to dismiss the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s R-CALF, et al. v. USDA Lawsuit.
The NCLA, representing farmers, ranchers, and livestock producers, challenged the USDA and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s unlawful 2024 rule requiring electronically readable (EID) eartags for certain cattle and bison transported across state lines, rather than the long-used visual tags. USDA claimed that NCLA’s clients – cattle producers – did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, but the District Court rejected USDA’s arguments. NCLA is determined to defeat the rule on the merits and finally end this costly and unnecessary mandate, which is disproportionately borne by smaller and independent cattle producers.
Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel for NCLA, said, “Since this rule came into effect almost a year ago, America’s farmers and ranchers have been forced to comply with an unnecessary mandate.”
A statement from R-CALF USA is below.
Ranchers Win First Legal Hurdle in EID lawsuit
Commentary by Bill Bullard, CEO, R–CALF USA
Almost a year ago, ranchers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging the agency’s final rule that mandated the use of electronic identification (EID) eartags for certain adult cattle moved in interstate commerce was unlawful. The ranchers were represented by Kara Rollins, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA).
The USDA filed a motion to dismiss the case, but now a federal district court has paved the way for the ranchers to proceed to the next phase in the lawsuit – the summary judgment phase.
Here’s a bit of background and detail:
The USDA’s final rule, the mandatory electronic identification (EID) eartag rule, went into effect Nov. 5, 2024. The final rule replaced a previous rule on animal identification that gave ranchers the choice of using low-cost metal eartags or high-cost EID eartags when transporting sexually intact adult cattle across state lines. But the final rule removed that choice and mandated the exclusive use of the more costly EID eartags.
We viewed the final rule as a clear example of government overreach – an unnecessary and unlawful infringement on the liberties and freedoms of America’s ranchers to choose how best to identify their cattle and run their operations.
We tried hard to stop the mandatory EID rule before it became final. We and other ranch organizations and ranchers filed public comments urging the USDA to withdraw its rule. But the USDA, under the previous administration and despite widespread rancher opposition, bowed its neck and forged ahead to implement the final rule.
We then worked with Congress and successfully encouraged both the House and Senate to introduce a resolution of disapproval that would reverse the final rule if it was passed in both houses. The Senate passed the resolution against the EID mandate, and by a wide margin. Unfortunately, as the 2024 elections loomed, the House of Representatives was unable to pass the resolution introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.).
And, so, to achieve our members’ policy goal of putting an end to the ill-conceived EID mandate, we asked Kara Rollins with the NCLA to file a lawsuit on behalf of independent ranchers to overturn the final rule.
R–CALF USA, the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, and South Dakota ranchers Kenny and Roxie Fox, and Rick and Theresa Fox joined together as plaintiffs in the NCLA lawsuit against the USDA’s EID mandate on Oct. 30, 2024.
But rather than address the merits of our lawsuit, the USDA responded to our complaint with a motion to dismiss, alleging that we lacked standing to bring the case to the federal court. In other words, the USDA claimed that none of us plaintiffs possessed a personal stake in the outcome of the case.
For example, the USDA argued that plaintiffs did not have standing because they suffered no injury since the final rule allows them to continue using brands and tattoos, which, if true, would mean they would not have to incur the higher cost of EID eartags. But as we argued in the case, brands and tattoos can only be used if both the shipping and receiving states agree, and not all states have such agreements.
The USDA then argued that even ranchers who had to purchase the costly EID tags should not have standing to bring a lawsuit. Fortunately, the court disagreed with the USDA and determined that the ranchers and ranch organizations have standing to sue. This means the case will now proceed to the next phase, the summary judgement phase, where the fight will focus on whether the final rule is necessary under the law.
We, of course, will continue arguing the final rule is unnecessary, as the previous rule that allowed ranchers to choose the type of eartags that best fit their operations is sufficient to meet the USDA’s disease traceback objectives in the event of a disease outbreak. And we’ll point out that the new rule only covers about 10% of the nation’s cattle herd – a percentage well below the percentage of participation the USDA had previously said was needed to achieve disease traceability.
Not only do we believe this mandatory EID rule implemented during the Biden administration is unnecessary and unlawful, but we also believe it flies in the face of President Trump’s efforts to put an end to costly government regulations that force private businesses to incur unnecessary compliance costs that harm their competitiveness. There is no question that this mandatory EID rule is driving up costs for American cattle ranchers.
Comments