Editor's note: This article has been updated.
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - The Liberty Justice Center of Chicago is representing Iowa farmer Jim Conlan, who seeks permission from a federal judge to plant crops on nine acres of land he owns but can’t use because the government claims it as wetlands under the "Swampbuster" law.
“I am proud to stand with the Liberty Justice Center and Pacific Legal Foundation in challenging this legislation, on behalf of the farmers across the country whose rights have been violated by Swampbuster for far too long,” said Conlan.
Conlan's CTM business sued U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at an Iowa district court on April 16, claiming his rules exceed his authority.
“While well-intentioned, this conservation scheme is unconstitutional. The government cannot condition benefits on the waiver of a constitutional right—in this case, the Fifth Amendment right to be compensated when the government takes some or all of your land. If welfare recipients had to promise to never criticize the government to receive welfare benefits, it would be plainly unconstitutional. Why should farmers’ rights be any different?” said Loren Seehase, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center.
“The Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate any piece of land in the country it wishes,” added Paige Gilliard, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “Nor may government force people to give up their rights in exchange for a government benefit.”
Plaintiff attorney James Dickey of Minnesota, along with Liberty Justice Center and Pacific Legal Foundation, filed the complaint on behalf of Dickey, claiming the nine acres are indistinguishable from 13 adjacent acres that Vilsack’s department doesn’t classify as wetland.
“They do not contain standing water and are not visibly wet,” plaintiff's counsel wrote.
Conlan's attorneys claimed the property contains a seasonal stream that is not designated as wetland, and the nine acres are at least 1,000 feet from the stream.
They claimed the department should have granted CTM’s request for redetermination of a former owner’s wetland designation from 2010.
They added that the statute allows a request for redetermination but a department rule allows review only when a natural event changes the land or the department finds an error.
They also challenged the department’s authority to adopt a rule that prohibits draining, dredging, filling, leveling and removing woody vegetation.
Conlan's attorneys claimed a farmer who farms a wetland can lose eligibility for storage facility loans, disaster payments, price support loans, crop insurance and Farmers Home Administration loans.
They claimed ineligibility can extend to other entities, properties, and persons including a spouse, minor child, guardian of minor child and partnership.
They added that the department conditions its benefits on taking land without just compensation.
“It will continue to do so unless and until a court orders them to stop,” they wrote.
Conlan's counsel claimed Conlan was raised in Iowa, his father and grandfather were farmers, and he purchased the home of his grandparents in 1990.
They claimed Conlan acquired about 1,075 acres of Iowa farmland through CTM and an affiliate.
CTM allegedly purchased about 72 acres in Delaware County in September 2022.
The plaintiff's attorneys claimed about 40 acres were tilled for agricultural use.
They claimed the prior owner designated about ten acres as erodible in the department’s conservation reserve program.
They added that about 22 acres were forested, including the prior owner’s nine acre wetland.
Conlan's counsel claimed CTM requested redetermination of the wetland designation in October 2022, and a field office issued a letter in January 2023 stating the determination would stand.
They claimed the letter informed CTM it had no right to appeal.
The letter allegedly confirmed that about 13 of the 22 forested acres weren’t wetland.
“It did not provide a scientific basis for determining that the other nine acres met the definition of wetland,” they wrote.
Conlan's attorneys claimed the 22 forested acres consisted of five separate areas of trees and overgrowth.
“The forest does not contain standing water, is not visibly wet, is not connected to any water body, and is not permanently or seasonally saturated or inundated by water at any time of the year,” they wrote.
They claimed CTM rents the 40 tillable acres to a tenant who plants feed corn or soybeans every spring and harvests the crops in the fall.
They claimed that without an injunction, CTM would miss the window of time to plant and lose profits from crops that could have been grown on the nine acres.
“Plaintiff has no choice but to give up all uses of the nine acres in order to retain benefits for itself and its tenants for all 1,075 acres,” they wrote.
The plaintiff's attorneys requested a declaration that the national wetland law exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and judgment setting the law aside.
They requested a declaration that a perpetual easement as a condition of benefits requires producers to waive rights under the Constitution’s commerce clause and takings clause.
They also requested judgment setting aside the determinations of 2010 and 2023 or compelling their acceptance of the request for redetermination.
A website for Pacific Legal Foundation states it has brought 20 cases to the Supreme Court and won 18, including landmark cases in property rights and administrative law.
The website states, “Every year Pacific Legal Foundation represents hundreds of Americans, free of charge, who seek to improve their lives but are stymied by government.”
“We give them their day in court to vindicate their rights and set a lasting precedent to protect everyone else,” it states
Chief District Judge Charles Williams will preside.