# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 35 30

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Greg Herd en ; Ro ge r Herd en ; Gar ret t Her de n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 2, 2 01 3

Fil ed : Au gu st 9, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN, LOK EN, MURPHY, BYE, MELLOY,

SMI TH, COLLO TON, GRUEN DER, BENTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s,

En Ba nc

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, wit h who m W OLLMAN, LOKEN, MURP HY, SMI TH,

COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es , join , con cu rri ng

.

Greg Herd en

, Ro ge r Herd en

, an d Garre t t H erd en (th e Herd en s) su ed th e

Uni te d St at es un de r th e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 46

, 26 71

-

80

. The y al le ge d th ei r cat tl e op erat io n su ffer ed da m ag e be cau se of a se ed m ix tu re anem

pl oyee of th e Uni te d Stat es Dep art m en t of Ag ric ul tu re (USDA) d ire ct ed th em to

pl an t on th ei r la nd

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e Herd en s' cl ai m s, co nc lu di ng th e 1

fed eral em

pl oyee's co nd uc t fel l wit hi n th e FTCA's di sc ret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

.

Afte r a di vi de d pa n e l o f th is co ur t rev ers ed th e di st ric t co ur t, th e en ba nc co ur t

gr an te d t he go ve rn m en t's pe ti ti on for reh eari ng . W e n ow af fir m th e d is tri ct co ur t.

I

The Herd en s op erat e a th ree- ge ne rat io n cat tl e farm in no rth ern Mi nn es ot a. In 2

May 20 04

, th e Herd en s ch os e to pa rti ci pa te in th e Env iro nm en ta l Qua li ty In cen ti ve s

Pro gr am (EQIP). EQIP is a pr og ram ru n by th e USDA th ro ug h th e Natu ral Res ou rce

C o n se rv at io n Serv ic e (NRCS ). "Th e pu rp os e of EQIP is to pr om ot e ag ric ul tu r e

pr od uc ti on

, fo res try m an ag em en t, an d en vi ro nm en ta l qua lit y as co m pa ti bl e go al s, an d

to op ti m iz e en vi ro nm en ta l be ne fit s." Meg an St ub bs

, Co ng

. Res earc h Serv

., R4 01 97

,

Env iro nm en ta l Qua li ty In cen ti ve s Pro gr am (EQIP): St at us an d Is su es 1 (2 00 9) ; se e

al so 16 U.S.C. § 38 39 aa (rec it in g th e pu rp os es of EQ I P ). Thro ug h EQIP, th e

go ve rn m en t pro vi de s fin an ci al an d t ech ni cal ass is ta nc e to farm ers an d ran ch ers

. In

e x c h an ge

, farm ers an d ran ch ers who ch oo se to pa rti ci pa te in EQIP im pl em en t

co ns erv at io n mea s u r e s "t o ad dr es s so il

, wate r, ai r, an d rel at ed na tu ral res ou rces

co nc ern s

. . . on th ei r l an ds in an en vi ro nm en ta ll y be ne fic ia l an d co st -eff ect iv e

m an ne r." 7 C.F.R. § 14 66 .1 (2 00 4)

. In th is cas e, th e Herd en s agre ed to pl an t a m ix

of gr as se s an d le gu m es on so m e of th ei r pa st ur e la nd s, an d th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to

rei m bu rs e th e Herd en s 90 % of th e c o s t s a s s oc ia te d wit h pl an ti ng th e se ed m ix tu re

ch os en by the NRCS.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

Ro ge r Herd en is G re g Herd en 's fat he r. Greg Herd en is Garre tt Herd en 's fat he r. 2

-2

-Bec au se en vi ro nm en ta l co nd it io ns va ry wid el y acro ss t h e Uni te d St at es

, th e

sp eci fic co ns erv at io n pr act ic es ap pr ov ed th ro ug h EQIP m us t be de te rm in ed lo cal ly.

See 68 Fed

. Reg

. at 32 ,34 1 (2 00 3) ("A ba si c el em en t of EQIP im pl em en ta ti on

. . . is

th e us e of th e lo cal ly-led pr oc es s to ad ap t EQIP to lo cal co nd it io ns ."). As a res ul t, th e

NRCS's St at e Co ns e r v a t io ni st ch oo se s lo cal em pl oyees who wil l ad m in is te r th e

pr og ram at sp eci fic si te s. See 7 C.F.R. § 14 66 .6 (2 00 4)

. In Mi nn es ot a, W il li am Hun t

se rv ed as th e NRCS 's St at e Co ns erv at io ni st

. Hun t de le ga te d se ed m ix tu re pl an ti ng

de ci si on s to hi s st aff, in cl ud in g S t a t e Grazi ng Sp eci al is t Howar d Mo ech ni g.

Mo ech n i g was th e pa rti cu la r st aff m em be r who vi si te d th e Herd en s' ran ch to se le ct

a se ed m ix tu re.

Mo ech ni g vi si te d th e Herd en s' op erat io n in th e fal l of 20 04

, in cl ud in g a pa st ur e

refe rred to as Sect io n 11

. Mo ech ni g ob se rv ed pa rti cu la rly wet co nd it io ns in Sect io n

11

. Bec au se of th e sa tu rat ed so il

, Mo ech ni g ch os e a se ed m ix tu re wit h a hi gh am ou nt

of Als ik e Cl ov er fo r th e Herd en s to pl an t in th e pa st ur e. S p e c i f i c a ll y

, Mo ech ni g

reco m m en de d a m ix tu re co m

pr is ed of si x po un ds of Als i k e C l o v e r, fo ur po un ds of

Tim ot hy gr as s, an d th ree po un ds of Garri so n Cree pi ng Fo xt ai l gr as s. Alt og et he r th e

se ed m ix tu re av erag ed 27 1 se ed s pe r sq ua re fo ot

. Mo ech ni g ex pl ai ne d he ch os e th at

pa rti cu la r se ed m ix tu re fo r se ve ral reas on s, in cl ud in g th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) to es ta bl is h

go od gr ou nd co ve r; (2 ) t o e n ha nc e so il qu al it y ; (3 ) to en ha nc e gr ou nd an d su rfac e

wate r qu al it y ; (4 ) to pr ev en t ero si on ; (5 ) to crea te wil dl ife ha bi ta t; an d (6 ) to pr ov id e

go od fo rag e. See App

. at 37

. In ad di ti o n

, M oe ch ni g be li ev ed th e se ed m ix tu re he

ch os e "wo ul d co nt in ue to pr ov id e go od ve ge ta ti on fo r m an y y ears

, so co st -s ha rin g it

th ro ug h EQIP was a go od in ve st m en t fo r NRCS." Id.

Fed eral reg ul at io ns req ui re th at "[a ]ll co ns erv at io n pr act ic es in th e EQIP pl an

of op erat io ns m

us t be carr ie d ou t in acco rd an ce wit h th e ap pl ic ab le NRCS fie ld of fic e

te ch ni cal gu id e." 7 C.F.R. § 14 66 .9 (2 00 4)

. W he n ch oo si ng th e se ed m ix tu re fo r th e

Herd en s' la nd

, Mo ech ni g refe rr e d t o Co de 51 2 of th e Mi nn es ot a Fi el d Offi ce

-3

-Tech ni cal Gui de (FOTG). Und er a he ad in g en ti tl ed "Sp eci es Sel ect io n," Co de 51 2 3

sa y s se ed "[m ]ixt u r e s w i ll ha ve a reco m m en de d se ed in g rat e of 50 -7 0 se ed s pe r

sq ua re fo ot ." Alt ho ug h th e 27 1 se ed s pe r sq ua re fo ot Mo e c h n i g ch os e fo r th e

Herd en s ' l a nd ex ceed ed th is reco m m en de d se ed in g rat e, an ot he r pr ov is io n of Co de

51 2 (Tab le 2 en ti tl ed "M ix tu res Rec om m en de d in Mi nn es ot a") sp eci fie d th at "[o ]the r

m ix tu res m ay be us ed ." In fact

, Ta b l e 2 l i s te d se ve ral m ix tu res th at ex ceed ed th e

reco m m en de d s eed in g ra te of 5 0- 70 see ds pe r sq ua re fo ot

.

Si m il arl y , Tabl e 1 en ti tl ed "Se ed in g R at es " al lo wed for se ve ral m ix tu res th at

e x c e e d e d th e reco m

m en de d se ed in g rat e of 50 -7 0 se ed s pe r sq ua re fo ot

. Fo r 4

ex am pl e, whe n Als ik e Cl ov er is pl an te d al on e an d no t in a m i xt ur e, Tab le 1

reco m m en ds pl an ti ng 3.5 m il li on se ed s pe r acre

, whi ch co nv ert s to ov er 80 se ed s pe r

sq ua re fo ot . Li ke wis e, th e "i n m ix tu re" reco m m en da ti on s u nd er Tab le 1 fo r Als ik e

Cl ov er (1 .4 m il li on see ds pe r acr e) an d Ti m ot hy gras s (3 .69 m il li on se ed s pe r acr e)

co nv ert to 11 7 s eed s p er s qu are f oo t wi th ou t i nc lu di ng Cree pi ng Fo xt ai l g ras s.

Afte r Mo ech ni g ch os e th e se ed m ix tu re fo r th e pa st ur e in Sect io n 11

, Greg

Herd en sa id he co m

pl ai ne d to Mo ech ni g ab ou t th e hi gh am ou nt of Als ik e Cl ov er in

th e m ix tu re be cau se th e cl ov er can crea te t o x i c h ay fo r cat tl e. Mo ech ni g do es no t

reca ll Herd en co m

pl ai ni ng ab ou t Als ik e Cl ov er to xi ci ty, bu t do es rem em be r Herd en

as ki ng fo r pe rm is si on to pl an t a m ix co nt ai ni ng al fal fa. Mo ech ni g de ni ed pe rm is si on

t o p l a n t a n a lfa lfa m ix

, ex pl ai ni ng th at al fal fa is ha rd to es ta bl is h on wet so il s an d

th eref or e wou ld ne it he r m eet NRCS's en vi ro nm en ta l go al s no r be a go od in ve st m en t

fo r th e go ve rn m en t. The Herd en s ch os e to co m pl y wit h Mo ech ni g's se ed m ix tu re

Co in ci de nt al ly, Mo ech ni g h im se lf a ut ho red Co de 51 2 o f th e FOTG. 3

Tab le 1 li st s th e nu m

be r of po un ds of se ed reco m m en de d pe r acre fo r va rio us 4

gr as se s an d l eg um es , as wel l as th e n um be r of see ds in each po un d. The po un ds of

se ed s pe r acre m

ul ti pl ie d by th e am ou nt o f s e e ds pe r po un d co nv ert s to se ed s pe r

sq ua re fo ot by div id in g t he res ul t b y 43 ,56 0, t he nu m

be r of sq ua re fe et in an acre

.

-4

-de ci si on be cau se fai lu re to do so wou ld ha ve res ul te d in lo si ng t h e fed eral fu nd in g

un de r EQIP.

Afte r pl an ti ng th e se ed m ix tu re in th e Sect io n 11 pa st ur e, th e Herd en s al lo wed

cat tl e to gr aze th e pa st ur e. The y al so h a r v e s t e d ha y fro m th e pa st ur e an d st or ed it

.

The y la te r fed th e st or ed ha y to th ei r cat tl e du rin g th e win te r an d sp rin g of 20 06 -0 7.

The Herd en s cl ai m to xi c ha y be ga n to in jure t h e i r c a tt le in th e sp rin g of 20 07

.

Sev eral cal ve s w e r e st il lb or n, an d ot he rs di ed sh or tl y aft er bi rth

. Adu lt cat tl e al so

di ed

. The Herd en s at t rib ut e th e il ln es se s an d de at hs of th ei r cat tl e to th e Als ik e

Cl ov er in th e ha y ha rv es te d fro m th e Sect io n 11 pa st ur e. The y c la im th e lo ss es to

th ei r cat tl e he rd ha ve vi rtu al ly de st ro y ed th ei r m ul ti -g en erat io na l farm in g op erat io n.

The NRCS co nt es ts th e Herd en s' cl a i m s an d in st ead be li ev es m ol d in im pr op erl y

st or ed ha y

cau se d t he pro bl em s wi th th e cat tl e h erd

.

In Feb ru ary 20 10

, th e Herd en s br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es pu rs ua nt

to th e FTCA. The y al le ge d Mo ech ni g was ne gl ig en t in ad vi si ng th em to pl an t a se ed

m ix tu re wit h su ch a hi gh am ou nt of Als ik e Cl ov er, an d hi s ne gl ig en ce cau se d in jury

to th ei r cat tl e op erat io n an d fam il y farm

. The go ve rn m en t m ov ed to di sm is s fo r la ck

of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 ( b ) ( 1 )

. The

go ve rn m en t arg ue d Mo ech ni g's se ed m ix tu re se le ct io n was th e t yp e of po li cy

im pl em en ti ng de ci s i o n f

o r whi ch th e go ve rn m en t is im m un e fro m su it un de r th e

FTCA's di sc ret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

. The di st ric t co ur t ag re e d Mo ech ni g's

de ci si on was a di sc ret io na ry on e. The d is tri ct co ur t fu rth er d et erm in ed Mo ech ni g's

de ci si on in vo lv ed th e ba la nc in g of po li cy go al s an d co ns id erat io ns

, m ak in g it th e type

of di sc ret io na ry de ci si on Co ng res s in te nd ed to ex em pt fro m su it

. The di st ric t co ur t

th eref or e gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t's m ot io n to di sm is s. The Herd en s fil ed a ti m el y

ap pe al

.

-5

-II

W he n a di st ric t co ur t di sm is se s a cl ai m un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e

12 (b )(1 ) fo r la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

, we rev ie w th e di sm is sa l de no vo

, "p la ci ng th e bu rd en of pr o v i ng th e ex is te nc e of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on on th e

pl ai nt iff ." Green Acres Ent ers

., In c. v. Uni te d St at es

, 41 8 F.3 d 8 5 2

, 8 5 6 ( 8t h Ci r.

20 05 ). W e m ay l o o k o u ts id e th e pl ead in gs to de te rm in e th e th res ho ld qu es ti on of

juri sd ic ti on . Id.

Pu rs ua nt to th e FTCA, th e fed eral go ve rn m en t waiv es so ve rei gn im m un it y an d

al lo ws i ts el f to be su ed

fo r in jury or lo ss of pr op ert y

. . . cau se d by th e ne gl ig en t or wro ng fu l act

or om is si on of an y em

pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t whi le act in g wit hi n th e

sc op e of hi s of

fic e or em

pl oym en t, un de r ci rcu m st an ces whe re th e

Uni te d St at es

, i f a p r iv at e pe rs on

, wou ld be li ab le to th e cl ai m an t in

acco rd an ce wit h th e la w of th e pl ace whe re th e act or om is si on oc cu rred

.

28 U.S.C. § 13 46 (b )(1 ). Thi s br oa d waiv er do es no t, ho wev er, ap pl y to cl ai m s "b as ed

up on th e ex erci se or pe rfo rm an ce or th e fai lu re to ex erci se or pe rfo rm a di sc ret io na ry

fu nc ti on or du ty on th e p art of a fed eral ag en cy or a n e m pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t,

whe th er or no t th e di sc ret io n in vo lv ed be ab us ed ." 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 26 80 (a). Thi s

ex cep ti on is refe rred to as th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

. See, e.g

., W al te rs v.

Uni te d St at es

, 47 4 F.3 d 11 37

, 11 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). " If th e FTCA's di sc ret io na ry

fu nc ti on ex cep ti on ap pl ie s, i t i s a ju ris di ct io na l b ar t o s ui t." Id.

A well -es ta bl is he d le ga l f ram ewo rk ap pl ie s to de te rm in e whe th er th e

di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on ba rs a pa rty's su it un de r th e FTCA. The fir st in qu iry

is whe th er th e ch al le ng ed co nd uc t or om is si on is tru ly di sc ret io na ry

, th at is

, whe th er

it in vo lv es an el em en t of jud gm en t or ch oi ce in st ead of be in g "co nt ro ll ed by

m an da to ry st at ut es or reg ul at i o n s

. " Uni te d St at es v. Gau be rt, 49 9 U.S. 31 5, 32 8

-6

-( 1 9 9 1 ) ( c i ti ng Berk ov it z v. Uni te d St at es

, 48 6 U.S. 53 1, 53 6 (1 98 8) ). If th e

ch al le ng ed co nd uc t i s n ot di sc ret io na ry , th e ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y

.

If th e ch al le ng ed act io n is di sc ret io na ry

, ho wev er, th e ne xt in qu iry is whe th er

th e go ve rn m en t em

p l o yee's jud gm en t or ch oi ce was "b as ed on co ns id erat io ns of

so ci al

, eco no m ic

, an d po li ti cal po li cy ." Lay to n v. Uni te d St at es

, 98 4 F.2 d 14 96

, 14 99

(8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (ci ti ng Berk ov it z, 48 6 U.S. at 53 6- 37 ). Not al l di sc ret io na ry de ci si on s

are im m un e f r o m su it be cau se th e Co ng res si on al pu rp os e of th e ex cep ti on is "t o

pr ev en t jud ic ia l 'se co nd -g u e s s in g' of le gi sl at iv e an d ad m in is tra ti ve de ci si on s

gr ou nd ed in so ci al

, eco no m ic

, an d po li ti cal po li cy [.]" Uni te d St at es v. Vari g Airl in es

,

46 7 U.S. 79 7, 81 4 (1 98 4)

. Howev er, as lo ng as a di sc ret io na r y d e c i s io n is

"s us cep ti bl e to po li cy an al y si s, " G a u b e rt, 49 9 U.S. at 32 5, th e ex cep ti on ap pl ie s

"wh et he r or no t [a] de fen da nt in fact en ga ge d in co ns ci ou s po li cy -b al an ci ng ." C.R.S.

ex r el . D.B.S. v. Uni te d S ta te s, 1 1 F .3d 79 1, 8 01 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3)

.

A

The Herd en s fir st co nt en d Mo ech ni g's se le c ti on of a se ed m ix tu re fo r th e

Sect io n 11 pa st ur e was no t a d is cret io na ry de ci si on

. Mo re to th e po in t, th ey arg ue

Mo ech ni g vi ol at ed a m an da to ry an d sp eci fic di rect iv e of th e FOTG whe n he se le ct ed

a se ed m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng 27 1 se ed s pe r sq ua re fo ot

, be cau se Co de 51 2 s a ys se ed

"[m ]ixt ur es wil l ha ve a rec om m en de d se ed in g rat e of 50 -7 0 se ed s pe r sq ua re fo ot ."

See B ur gi n v . Nix

, 89 9 F.2d 73 3, 7 35 (8t h C ir. 1 99 0) (pe r cu ria m ) (rec og ni zi ng th e

us e o f th e wor d " wil l" in a pr is on po li cy was m an da to ry

in na tu re).

W e ack no wled ge a fed eral reg ul at io n cl earl y m an da te s th at "[a ]ll co ns erv at io n

pr act ic es in th e EQIP pl an of op erat io ns m us t be ap pr ov ed by NRCS an d de ve lo pe d

an d carr ie d ou t in acco rd an ce wit h th e ap pl ic ab le NRCS te ch ni cal gu id an ce." 7

C.F.R. § 14 66 .9(a )

. In ad di ti on

, th e go ve rn m en t do es no t di sp ut e th e "t ech ni cal

gu id an ce" m en ti on ed in § 14 66 .9(a ) refe rs to th e Mi nn es ot a FOTG, in cl ud in g Co de

-7

-51 2. W e ul ti m at el y reject th e Herd e n s ' c o n t en ti on th at Mo ech ni g vi ol at ed a

m an da to ry an d sp eci fic di rect iv e whe n he s e l e c te d a se ed m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng m or e

th an 50 -7 0 se ed s pe r sq ua re fo ot

, ho wev er, be cau se Co de 51 2 it se lf do es no t man da te

an y pa rti cu la r se ed m ix tu res

. Rat he r, ou r read in g of th e FOTG i nd ic at es Co de 51 2

se t fo rth te ch ni cal gu id el in es fo r Mo ech ni g to fo ll ow in th e ex erci se of hi s di sc ret io n.

W e reac h th is co nc lu si on fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, al th ou gh Co de 51 2 st at es se ed

m ix tu res "wi ll ha ve " 50 -7 0 se ed s pe r sq ua re f o o t

, ot he r pa rts of Co de 51 2 us e

pe rm is si ve la ng ua ge whi ch c o n f l ic ts wit h th is pu rp or te dl y m an da to ry di rect iv e.

Not ab ly, th e ph ras e "5 0- 70 se ed s pe r sq ua re fo ot " i s i t s e l f m od ifi ed by th e wor d

"re co m m en de d." C o d e 5 1 2 al so st at es it "m ay be ap pl ie d as pa rt of a res ou rce

m an ag em en t syste m " an d "[o ]the r m ix tu res m ay be us ed ." See Dy ks tra v. Bu reau of

Pri so ns

, 1 4 0 F

. 3d 79 1, 79 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (in di cat in g "u se of th e te rm 'm ay ' in

. . .

reg ul at io ns im

po rts di sc ret io n" ). Ove ral l, Co de 51 2 us es pr ed om in an tl y pe rm is si ve

rat he r th an m an da to ry la ng ua ge

, a cl ear si gn al th e se ed in g m ix tu res co nt ai ne d th erei n

are m erel y gu id el in es rat he r th an m an da to ry req ui rem e n t s

. S ee Ri le y v. Uni te d

St at es

, 48 6 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (co nc lu di ng a un ifo rm st at e hi gh way

st an da rd whi ch ad dr es se d si gh t an gl es at in te rs ect io ns was m erel y a gu id el in e an d no t

m an da to ry , d es pi te th e st an da rd 's us e of th e te rm "m us t," be cau se th e st an da rd al so

us ed pe rm is si ve ter m s s uc h a s " gu id an ce" an d " reco m m en de d" ).

Seco nd , a s no te d ab ov e, m a n y o f th e se ed in g m ix tu res li st ed in Tab le s 1 an d

2 o f Co de 51 2 actu al ly ex ceed th e pu rp or te d m ax im um of 7 0 s eed s p er s qu are f

oo t.

As a res ul t, a St at e Grazi ng Sp eci al is t su ch as Mo ech ni g co ul d no t, in m an y in st an ces

,

co m pl y wit h th e se ed m ix tu res co nt ai ne d in th e ta bl es a s well as th e reco m m en de d

se ed in g rat e of 50 -7 0 se ed s pe r sq ua r e f o o t

. Thi s su pp or ts th e go ve rn m en t's

co nt en ti on th at th e reco m m en de d se ed in g rat e in Co de 51 2 d i d n o t r e fer to th e

m ax im um am ou nt of se ed s to be pl an te d pe r sq ua re fo ot , and was n ot in te nd ed as a

m an da to ry ran ge

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, we co nc lu de Mo ech ni g's se le ct io n of a se ed m ix tu re

fo r th e Sec ti on 11 pa st ur e was a di sc ret io na ry de ci si on

.

-8

-B

The Herd en s fu rth er co nt en d Mo ech ni g's se e d mi x t ur e se le ct io n, ev en if

di sc ret io na ry

, was no t th e type of di sc ret io na ry de ci si on Co ng res s in te nd ed to sh ie ld

fro m su it be cau se i t is no t su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an al y si s. Bec au se we ha ve

de te rm in ed Mo ech ni g's de ci si on was a di sc ret io na ry on e, "i t m us t be pr es um ed th at

th e ag en t's act s are gr ou nd ed in po li cy whe n ex erci si ng th at di sc ret io n." Gau be rt, 49 9

U.S. at 32 4. "Th e [Herd en s] m us t reb ut th is pr es um

pt io n." Dem ery v. Uni te d St at es

Dep 't o f In te rio r, 35 7 F .3d 83 0, 8 33 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

In at te m pt in g to reb ut th e pr es um

pt io n th at Mo ech ni g's de ci si on was gr ou nd ed

in po li cy

, th e Herd en s arg ue th e "d eci si on was a m ere pr of es si on al jud gm en t no t

im bu ed wit h th e po li cy m ak in g ch arac te r t h a t t h e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

was de si gn ed to sh ie ld fro m jud ic ia l se co nd gu e s s i ng ." App el la nt 's Br. at 22

. The

Herd en s fu rth er su gg es t th e " s c a l e of th e de ci si on m us t be co ns id ered " whe n

de te rm in in g wh et he r a pro fes si on al de ci si on is su sc ep ti bl e to a po li cy an al y si s, an d

th at Mo ech ni g's se ed m ix tu re de ci si on "was a pr of es si on al jud gm en t fo r on e farm

, no t

a d eci si on of s uf

fic ie nt sca le to be de em ed a po li cy jud gm en t." Id. at 21 , 22

.

In Gau be rt, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d a si m il ar cl ai m in vo lv in g op erat io na l

le ve l de ci s i on s un de rta ke n by fed eral ba nk reg ul at or s in m an ag in g th e da y -to -d ay

act iv it ie s of a sa vi ng s an d lo an as so ci at io n (SLA). The pl ai nt iff arg ue d th e reg ul at or s'

co nd uc t fel l ou ts id e th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on be cau se it " i n v o l v e d th e

m ere ap pl ic at io n of te ch ni cal sk il ls an d bu si ne ss ex pe rti s e " a t t h e op erat io na l le ve l

rat he r th an at a po li cy -m ak in g l ev el . 49 9 U.S. at 33 1. Th e Su pr em e Co ur t re jecte d

th is arg um en t, s ta ti ng :

Bu t th is is jus t ano th er way of sa y in g th at th e co ns id erat io ns in vo lv in g

th e da y -to -d ay m an ag em en t of a bu si ne ss co nc ern su ch as [th e SLA] are

so pr eci se ly fo rm

ul at ed th at de ci si on s at th e op er a t i o n al le ve l ne ve r

in vo lv e th e ex erci se of di sc ret io n with in th e m ean in g of [th e FTCA], a

-9

-no ti on th at we ha ve al read y reject ed in di sa pp ro vi ng th e rat io na le of th e

Co ur t o f App eal s' d eci si on . It m ay be th at cert ai n d eci si on s re st in g o n

m at he m at ic al cal cu la ti on s, fo r ex am pl e, in vo lv e no ch oi ce or jud gm en t

in carr y in g ou t th e cal cu la ti on s, bu t th e reg ul at or y act s al le ge d he re are

no t of th at ge nr e. Rat he r, it is pl ai n t o u s t h a t each of th e ch al le ng ed

act io ns in vo lv ed th e ex erci se of c ho ic e an d ju dg m en t.

Id

.

"Di sc ret io na ry co nd uc t is no t co nf in ed to th e po li cy or pl an ni ng le ve l." Id

. at

32 5. The fact th at Mo ech ni g's de ci si on in vo lv ed te ch ni cal or pr of es si on al jud gm en t

at th e op erat io na l le ve l is no t en ou gh to rem ov e h is de ci si on fro m th e pr ot ect io n of

th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

. See Lay to n, 98 4 F.2 d at 15 00 ("[ T] he Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s rep eat ed ly sa id th at it is th e na tu re of th e co nd uc t, rat he r th an th e st at us of

th e act or

, th at go ve rn s whe th er th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on ap pl ie s in a gi ve n

cas e.

. . . In ot he r wor ds

, th e fact th at de te rm in at io ns are m ad e at a rel at iv el y lo w le ve l

do es no t pr ev en t th e ap pl ic a b il it y of th e ex cep ti on .") (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d

ci ta ti on o mi tt ed ). Thu s, th e rel ev an t in qu iry do es no t fo cu s on whe th er Mo ech ni g

ap pl ie d pr of

es si on a l o r te ch ni cal jud gm en t to m ak e a de ci si on ab ou t jus t on e se ed

m ix tu re in on e pa st ur e of on e farm

. Rat he r, th e in qu iry is whe th er the se ed m ix tu re

de ci si on was su sc ep ti bl e to a po li cy an al y si s be cau se it was "b as ed on co ns id erat io ns

of so ci al , eco no m ic , and po li ti cal po li cy ." Id . at 1 49 9.

To de ci de th at qu es ti on

, we do no t st art on a cl ean sl at e. Mo ech ni g's se le ct io n

of a se ed m ix tu re im

pl em en te d t h e p ol ic ie s of th e EQIP pr og ram

, th e pu rp os e of

whi ch is "t o ad dr es s so il

, wate r, ai r, an d rel at ed na tu ral res ou rces co nc ern s

. . . in an

en vi ro nm en t a l l y b en efi ci al an d co st -eff ect iv e m an ne r." 7 C.F.R. § 14 66 .1 (2 00 4)

.

I n a n o th er cas e in vo lv in g en vi ro nm en ta l po li cy

, we ad dr es se d whe th er th e

go ve rn m en t's m ai nt en an ce of an aera ti on syste m on a la ke lo cat ed wit hi n th e Turt le

Mo un ta in In di an Res erv at i o n fel l wit hi n th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

.

Dem ery, 35 7 F.3 d at 83 2. W e he ld "[t ]he BIA's m ai nt en an ce of the aera ti on syste m

-1 0-cl earl y le nd s it se lf to po li cy an al y si s" be cau se th e "d eci si on co nc ern ed pr ot ect in g th e

en vi ro nm en t an d a qu at ic ha bi ta ts , whi ch are o bv io us is su es of p ol ic y ." Id . at 8 33

.

Si m il arl y , i n Lay to n we ad dr es se d "d eci si on s reg ard in g th e cu ll in g of ti m be r

. . . mad e at th e lo cal le ve l" by Fo res t Serv ic e em pl oyees. 98 4 F.2 d at 15 00

. One

em pl oyee of a pr iv at e co nt ract or h i r e d b y th e go ve rn m en t to cu ll tre es fro m th e

Ozark -St

. F r a n c i s N at io na l Fo res t di ed an d on e em pl oyee of a se co nd pr iv at e

co nt ract or su ffer ed in

juri es in se pa rat e fel li ng acci de nt s. The y bo th a l l e g e d t he ir

in juri es were cau se d in pa rt by th e ne gl ig en ce of Fo res t Ser v i c e e mplo y ees in

se le ct in g th e in di vi du al tre es to be fel le d. We hel d t he sel ect io n o f sp eci fic tre es to

be cu ll ed

– a de ci si on ba se d on th e pr of es si on al jud gm en t of fed eral ti m be r m ark ers

– fel l wit hi n th e di sc ret io na ry f u n c t i o n ex cep ti on be cau se th e "d eci si on s m ad e by

Fo res t Serv ic e pe rs on ne l were in de pe nd en t ch oi ces gr ou nd ed in po li cy ." Id

. at 15 02

.

The po li cy we id en ti fie d was th e "Fo res t Serv ic e's po li cy of im pr ov i n g ti m

be r

qu al it y ." Id

.

The si x reas on s Mo ech ni g ga ve fo r hi s se ed m ix tu re de ci si on (to es ta bl is h go od

gr ou nd co ve r, to en ha nc e so il qu al it y

, to en ha nc e gr ou nd an d su rfac e wate r qu al it y

,

to pr ev en t ero si on

, t o c r e at e wil dl ife ha bi ta t, an d to pr ov id e go od fo rag e) were al l

ba se d on co ns id erat io ns of en vi ro nm en ta l po li ci es th e EQI P pr og ram was m ean t to

ad va nc e. Co ns eq ue nt ly, we se e no m ean in gf ul di st in ct io n be twee n th e d e c is io ns 5

The di ss en t co nt en ds we im pe rm is si bl y fo cu s up on Mo ech ni g's a c t u al an d 5

s pe ci fic de ci si on

. The di ss en t cl ai m s th e act ua l de ci si on is irr el ev an t b e c a u s e a

ch al le ng ed de ci si on ne ed on ly be su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an al y si s fo r th e di sc ret io na ry

fu nc ti on ex cep ti on to ap pl y

. W e di sa gr ee to be in g li m it ed to an ab st ract co ns id erat io n

of an y pa rti cu la r de ci si on

. Alt ho ug h a de ci si on m ak er ne ed no t a c tu al ly co ns id er

so ci al

, eco no m ic

, or po li ti cal po li cy to tri gg er th e ex cep ti on

, it is no ne th el es s rel ev an t

w h en a de ci si on m ak er act ua ll y do es co ns id er po li cy fact or s be fo re m ak in g a

de ci si on

. In de ed

, th e fact a de ci si on m ak er act ua ll y ta ke s po li cy fact or s in to acco un t

is on e way to de m on st rat e a de ci si on is su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an al y si s. Fu rth erm or e,

th e qu es ti on whe th er a pa rti cu la r de ci si on m ak er act ua ll y co ns id ered po li cy fact or s,

-1 1-in vo lv ed in Dem ery an d Lay to n and th e se ed m ix tu re de ci si on in vo lv ed he re. In al l

th ree cas es

, fed eral em

pl oyees ex erci se d pr of

es si on al jud gm en t at th e op erat io na l

le ve l t o a dv an ce an en vi ro nm en ta l p ol ic y of t he fed eral go ve rn m en t.

W e ha ve al so reco gn iz ed on e of th e earm ark s of a d e c i s i o n su sc ep ti bl e to

po li cy an al y si s is on e in whi ch a fed eral em pl oyee m us t weig h or ba la nc e co m pe ti ng

in te res ts

. See Ch an ta l v. Uni te d St at es

, 10 4 F.3 d 20 7, 21 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) ("I t is well

es ta bl is he d th at a de ci si on whi ch req ui res th e weig hi ng of co m pe ti ng in te res t s is

'su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an al y si s' an d typif ie s th e ki nd of go ve rn m en ta l de ci si on s whi ch

Co ng res s i nt en de d t o s hi el d fr om jud ic ia l se co nd -g ue ss in g." (qu ot in g Gau be rt, 4 99

U.S. at 3 25 )).

In th is cas e, Mo ech ni g wa s c ha rg ed wit h ba la nc in g a nu m be r of co m

pe ti ng

in te res ts

. Co de 51 2 req ui red hi m to ch oo se a se ed mi xt ur e "as pa rt of a res ou rce

m an ag em en t s y st em

to acco m pl is h o ne or m or e" o f si x l is te d p ur po se s:

• Est ab li sh ad ap te d an d co m pa ti bl e sp eci es

, va rie ti es

, or cu lt iv ars

.

• Im pr ov e o r m ai nt ai n l iv es to ck nu tri ti on an d/ or he al th

.

• Ext en d t he len gt h o f th e g razi ng sea so n.

• Pro vi de em erg en cy for ag e p ro du ct io n.

• Red uc e so il ero si on by w in d a nd /o r wat er.

• Im pr ov e o r ren ov at e sp eci es gro win g o n p as tu re o r ha y la nd

.

or at le as t co ul d ha ve co ns id ered th em

, is a co m pl et el y se pa ra t e i n q ui ry fro m th e

qu es ti on whe th er th e de ci si o n m ak er ul ti m at el y ab us ed hi s di sc ret io n. Thu s, th e

di ss en t's ci ta ti on to 28 U.S.C. § 26 80 (a) (s t a t i n g th e Uni te d St at es m ay no t be su ed

ba se d up on a di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on "wh et he r or no t th e d is cret io n in vo lv ed be

ab us ed ") do es no th in g to ad va nc e th e cl ai m to th e effe ct we can no t ex am in e whe th er

Mo ech ni g a ct ua ll y

co ns id ered en vi ro nm en ta l p ol ic ie s p rio r to m ak in g h is de ci si on

.

-1 2-In ad di ti on

, two of th e st at ut or y pu rp os es of EQIP are to "p ro m ot e ag ric ul tu ral

pr od uc ti on

. . . an d en vi ro nm en ta l qu al it y as co m pa ti bl e go al s." 16 U.S.C. § 38 39 aa.

As t he fact s o f th is cas e ap tl y de m on st rat e, th e si x p ur

po se s l is te d i n C od e 5 12 – as

well as th e st at ut or y pu rp os es of ag ric ul tu ral pr od uc ti on an d en vi ro nm en ta l qu al it y

– c an so m et im es be co m

pe ti ng in te res ts ev en th ou gh th e NRCS is ch arg ed wit h t he

ta sk of m ak in g t he m

co m pa ti bl e.

On on e ha nd

, th e Herd en s b e l ie ve d a se ed m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng al fal fa wou ld

ha ve be tt er ad va nc ed th e st at ut or y go al of ag ric ul tu ral pr od uc ti on

, as well as on e of

Co de 51 2's st a t e d pu rp os es of im pr ov in g or m ai nt ai ni ng li ve st oc k nu tri ti on an d/ or

he al th

. On th e ot he r ha nd

, Mo ech ni g be li ev ed a se ed m ix t u r e c o n t ai ni ng Als ik e

Cl ov er wou ld be tt er ad va nc e th e st at ut or y go al of en vi ro nm en ta l qu al it y

, an d at le as t

on e of Co de 51 2's st at ed pu rp os es of red uc in g so il ero si on by win d an d/ or wate r. The

fact th at Mo ech ni g was req ui red to ba la nc e th os e c o mp e t i n g in te res ts in or de r "t o

op ti m iz e en vi ro nm en ta l be ne fit s," 16 U

. S

. C

. § 38 39 aa, cl earl y de m on st rat es th e

de ci si on he ul ti m at el y m ad e was su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an a lysis an d th us th e type of

de ci si on Co ng res s m ean t to sh ie ld fro m jud ic ia l se co nd -g ue ss in g. A fed e r al

em pl oyee im pl em en ti ng EQIP at th e lo cal

, op erat io na l le ve l m us t ha ve th e di sc ret io n

to ba la nc e en vi ro nm en ta l pr ot ect io n an d ca t t l e p r o d uc ti on in or de r fo r th e pr og ram

to be wort h t he go ve rn m en t's si gn ifi can t i nv es tm en t.

Moe chni g's ne ed to ba la nc e co m pe ti ng in te res ts is wha t pr im ari ly dis tin gui she s

th is cas e fro m ot he rs whe re de ci si on s in vo lv in g th e ex erci se of pr of es si on al jud gm en t

di d no t fal l wit hi n th e pr ot ect io n of th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

. See C.R.S.,

11 F.3 d at 80 2 ("T he is su e

. . . whe th er th ere are real an d co m pe ti ng po li cy

co ns id erat io ns im

pl ic at ed is wha t sep arat es " pro te ct ed di sc ret io na ry de ci si on s from

unpr ote ct ed on es .); Lay to n, 98 4 F.2 d at 15 05 (b as in g it s di st in ct io n be twee n pr ote ct ed

di sc ret io na ry de ci si on s an d un pr ot ect ed on es on whe th er a "co ns id erat io n of

co m pe ti ng va lu es was i m

pl ic at ed in th e g ov ern m en t's de ci si on ").

-1 3-F o r e xa m pl e, in Lath er v. Bea dl e Co un ty, 87 9 F.2 d 36 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 )

, w e

ad dr es se d th e pr ov is io n of m ed ic al ca re by a gove rn m en t phy si ci an

, m or e sp eci fic al ly,

th e tre at m en t pr ov id ed by a ps y ch ol og is t em pl oyed by th e Nati on al Heal th Serv ic es

Co rp or at io n in Hur on

, So ut h Dak ot a. The ba sk et ba ll co ach fo r Hur on Co ll eg e so ug ht

tre at m en t fro m th e ps y ch ol og is t fo r de pr es si on

. The go ve rn m en t ps y ch ol og i s t

, in

co ns ul ta ti on wit h a ps y ch ia tri st , pre sc rib ed m ed ic at io n t o t reat th e de pr es si on . The

de pr es si on wor se n e d

, h o wev er, an d ul ti m at el y th e co ach su ffer ed se rio us in juri es

whe n he jum

pe d fro m a m ov in g ve hi cl e whi le be in g tra ns po rt e d b y d ep ut y sh eri ffs

to th e Hum an Serv ic es Cen te r in Yan kt on aft er vo lu nt ari ly co mm it ti ng hi m se lf.

Fo ll owi ng th e in

juri es

, th e co ach su ed th e go ve rn m en t ps y ch ol og is t al le gi ng he was

ne gl ig en t i n h is ev al ua ti on of th e co ach 's m ed ic al co nd it io n a nd in fai li ng to ad vi se

th e de pu ty sh eri ffs to us e res tra in ts du rin g th e co ach 's tra ns po rta ti on be twee n Hur on

an d Yan kt on . Id . at 3 66 -6 8. We hel d t he ph y si ci an 's p ro vi si on of m ed ic al care di d

no t fal l wit hi n th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on be ca u s e i t di d no t in vo lv e

"g ov ern m en ta l di sc ret io n," wh i c h w e eq ua te d wit h th e ne ed to ba la nc e po li cy

co ns id erat io ns

. See id

. at 36 8 (ci ti ng Geo rg ia Cas

. & Su r. Co

. v. Uni te d St at es

, 82 3

F.2 d 2 60 , 26 2 (8 th Cir . 19 87 )).

In Lath er, th e go ve rn m en t act or was ad va nc in g a si ng ul ar go al

, i.e., pr ov id in g

ap pr op ria te m ed ic al care to a pa ti en t. The go ve rn m en t ps y ch ol og is t was no t req ui red

to ba la nc e an y co mp e ti ng po li cy co ns id erat io ns whe n he pr es cri be d de pr es si on

m ed ic at io n, or whe n he fai le d to in st ru ct th e de pu ty sh eri ffs to us e res tra in ts

. In sh arp

co nt ras t, Mo ech ni g's job req ui re d h i m to ba la nc e pr ot ect in g th e en vi ro nm en t wit h

pr ov id in g nu tri ti ou s cat tl e fo rag e, whi le at th e sa m e ti m e be in g co gn iz an t of th e co st

to th e Herd en s an d th e fed eral go ve rn m en t. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th is cas e in vo lv es

th e type of di sc ret io na ry de ci si on Co ng res s m ean t to sh ie ld fro m jud ic ia l se c o nd

gu es si ng

.

-1 4-III

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t.

MELLOY, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, wit h who m RILEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, an d SHEPHERD, Ci rcu it

Ju dg e, joi n, d is se nt in g.

I wou ld ho ld th at Mo ech ni g's de ci si on in th is cas e is no t t he type o f de ci si on

Co ng res s in te nd ed to sh ie ld fro m su it

. Deci si on s are n ot sh ie ld ed fro m su it m erel y

be cau se it is p os si bl e to id en ti fy po li cy is su es be hi nd th e go ve rn m en t pr og ram at

is su e. Rat he r, th ere m

us t be "re al an d co m

pe ti ng po li cy co ns id erat io ns im pl ic at ed ,"

C.R.S. ex re l. D.B.S. v. Uni te d St at es

, 11 F.3 d 79 1, 80 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ), at th e ge ne ral

le ve l of de ci si on m ak in g ch al le ng ed in th e la wsu it

. Thi s "i s wha t se pa rat es " pr ot ect ed

fro m un pr ot ect ed co nd uc t. Id

. It is ou r ta sk t o c a r efu ll y di st in gu is h th os e cas es

in vo lv in g m ean in gf

ul po li cy co ns id erat io ns fro m cas e s l i ke th is

, th at be ar on ly th e

su pe rfi ci al tra pp in gs of s uc h c on si de rat io ns

.

The m ajor it y id en ti fie s po te nt ia l po li cy co ns id erat io ns th a t l i e be hi nd EQIP,

an d co nc lud es tha t go ve rn m en t te ch ni cal sp eci al is ts ad m in is te rin g EQ IP —e m plo y ee s

su ch as Mo ech ni g —g en eral ly are pe rm it te d an d req ui red to m ak e de ci si on s ba se d

up on "co m

pe ti ng po li cy

co ns id erat io ns ." The m ajor it y st at es , "A fed eral em

pl oyee

im pl em en ti ng EQIP at th e lo cal

, op erat io na l le ve l m us t ha ve th e di sc ret io n to ba la nc e

en vi ro nm en ta l pr ot ect io n an d cat tl e pr od uc ti on in or de r fo r th e pr og ram to be wor th

th e go ve rn m en t ' s s i g n i fic an t in ve st m en t." Ant e at 13

. I si m pl y di sa gr ee th at su ch

di sc ret io n can be c h a r a c te riz ed as ad dr es si ng real an d co m pe ti ng po li cy

co ns id erat io ns in a m ean in gf ul se ns e

. Su ch an em

pl oyee do es no t en

joy th e

di sc ret io n to tre at th es e du al go al s as in co ns is te nt an d cha m pi on on e ov er th e ot he r.

Su ch an em

pl oyee m us t, as a m at te r of te ch ni cal ex pe rti se an d ba se d up on pr ev ai li ng

si te co nd it io ns

, "p ro m ot e ag ric ul tu ral pr od uc ti on

. . . an d en vi ro nm en ta l qu al it y as

co m pa ti bl e go al s." 16 U.S.C. § 38 39 aa. I fin d no su pp or t for th e pr op os it io n th at a

-1 5-te ch ni cal sp eci al is t su ch as Mo ech ni g i s empowe red by stat ut e, reg ul at io n, o r Co de

51 2 to st ep ou ts id e hi s ro le as a sc ie nt is t, ta ke on th e m an tl e of po l ic y m ak er, an d

ch oo se on e of th es e go al s ov er th e ot he r. See Berk ov it z v. Uni te d St at es

, 4 8 6 U.S.

53 1, 53 7 (19 88 ) ("[ T] he di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on in su la te s th e Gov ern m en t

fro m li ab il it y if th e act io n ch al le ng ed in th e cas e in vo lv es th e pe rmi ss ib le ex erci se of

po li cy jud gm en t." (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

To th e ex te nt th e m ajor it y v i e w s t hi s cas e as in vo lv in g a co m pe ti ng

di ch ot om y

—al fa l f a fo r cat tl e as al le ge dl y pr op os ed by th e Herd en s ve rs us

Mo ech ni g's se le ct ed se ed m ix (al le ge dl y un fit fo r cat tl e)— th e m ajor it y errs in th ree

se pa rat e way s. Fi rs t, i t i m pe rm is si bl y fo cu se s u po n M oe ch ni g's act ua l an d s pe ci fic

de ci si on in th is cas e. In ap pl yi n g th e se co nd st ep of th e di sc ret io na ry -fu nc ti on

an al y si s, ho wev er, we are to as k on ly if th e ch al le ng ed act io n pe rmi tt ed th e ex erci se

of di sc ret io n an d whe th er it was th e ty pe of go ve rn m en ta l act io n th at is su sc ep ti bl e

to po li cy an al y si s. W e are no t to ex am in e th e act ua l ch oi ce th at was m ad e an d in fer

fro m th at pa rti cu la r ch oi ce th at po li cy qu es ti on s were i n p la y . 2 8 U.S.C. § 26 80 (a)

(s ta ti ng th at th e Uni te d St at es m ay no t be su ed ba se d up on th e "ex erci s e or

pe rfo rm an ce or th e fai lu re to ex erc i s e or pe rfo rm a di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on

. . . ,

whe th er or no t th e di sc ret io n in vo lv ed be ab us ed "); Dem ery v. U.S. Dep 't of In te rio r,

35 7 F.3 d 83 0, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) ("Th e jud gm en t or de ci si on ne ed on ly be

su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an al ys i s

, r eg ard le ss of whe th er so ci al

, eco no m ic

, or po li ti cal

po li cy was ev er act ua ll y ta ke n in to acco un t, fo r th e ex cep ti on t o b e t r i gg ered .");

C.R.S., 11 F.3 d at 79 8 ("De fen da nt co ul d ha ve co ns id ered a wid e ran ge of po li cy

fact or s in m ak in g it s dec is io n; whe th er or no t it act ua ll y di d so is im m at eri al

. . . .").

Seco nd

, to th e ex te nt it was ap pr op ria te to ex am in e Mo ech ni g's act ua l de ci si on

at al l, th e m ajor it y 's de sc rip ti on of th e de ci si on is in co rrec t. Here, th e reco rd is cl ear:

Mo ech ni g di d no t se le ct hi s reco m m en de d se ed m ix tu re an d reject th e Herd en s'

req ue st fo r al f

a l fa to ch am

pi on en vi ro nm en ta l co nc ern s ov er fo rag e ne ed s. He

reject ed al fal fa as a pl an ti ng op ti on fo r th e pa st ur e in Sect io n 11 be cau se he di d no t

-1 6-be li ev e al fal fa was ap pr op ria te fo r th e si te

. In hi s te ch ni cal es ti m at io n, al fal fa was no t

li ke ly to th riv e in th at pa st ur e's sat ur at ed so il . Also , in hi s tech ni cal es ti m at io n and

pr of es si on al jud gm en t, a hi gh se ed ap pl ic at io n rat e fo r th e ot he r sp eci es was req ui red

to co m pe ns at e fo r th es e di ffi cu lt gr owi ng co nd i t i o n s

. Fu rth er, Mo ech ni g's

reco m m en de d se ed m ix tu re can no t reas on ab ly be vi ewed as in he ren tl y in co m pa ti bl e

wit h ca t t l e fo rag e ne ed s whe n vi ewed in th e ap pr op ria te co nt ex t, i.e., as pa rt of a

la rg er cat t l e o p e rat io n in vo lv in g se ve ral di ffer en t pa st ur es wit h di ffer en t

ch arac te ris ti cs an d di ffer en t pl an t sp eci es

. Thi s in de pe nd en t fact pr ov es th e fal se ne ss

of th e di ch ot om

y at th e he art of th e m ajor i t y's op in io n. The fig ht in g is su es in th is

cas e, were a c o u r t t o p e r mi t it to go to tri al

, wou ld be is su es of cau sa ti on : di d

Mo ech ni g's se ed se le ct io n cau se th e da m ag e to th e Herd en s' catt le ; di d th e Herd en s

im pr op erl y ha rv es t an d st or e wet gr as se s an d le gu m es fro m Sect io n 11

, th us by th ei r

own ha nd s in de pe nd en tl y cau si ng th e de ve lo pm en t of da ng ero us mo l d s o r ot he r

to xi ns ; di d th e Herd en s un wis el y pe rm it th ei r cat tl e to gr aze to o lo n g o r t o o

ex cl us iv el y on a fie ld of al si ke cl ov er whe n ot he r, le ss -al si ke -in te ns iv e pa st ur es were

av ai la bl e; or

, ev en as su m in g th ere were no m ol d or ot he r st or ag e-re la te d in fir m it ie s

wit h fe ed fro m Sect io n 11 , d id th e Herd en s si m pl y err by u nwi se ly and ex cl us iv el y

feed in g a he av y al si ke cl ov er m ix tu r e t o t h e cat tl e whe n th e ha rv es te d pr od uc ts of

Sect io n 11 co ul d ha ve be en bl en de d wit h ot h e r s t o r e d f eed ? The se po te nt ia l an d

se rio us jury qu es ti on s as to cau sa ti on m ak e cl ear th e m ajor it y 's erro r in ex a mini ng

Mo ech ni g's act ua l de ci si on an d in te rp ret in g it as ba se d on a fal se di ch ot om y pi tt in g

cat tl e n eed s ag ai ns t en vi ro nm en ta l n eed s.

Thi rd

, th e cas es sh ow th at in al m os t al l si t u a t i o n s, it is po ss ib le to lo ok at a

go ve rn m en t act or 's de ci si on m ak in g ta sk an d fin d so m e el em en t of "s oc ia l, eco no m ic

,

or po li ti cal po li cy ," Dem ery, 35 7 F.3 d at 83 3, lu rk in g in th e ba ck gr ou nd

. It rem ai ns

im po rta nt to ack no wled ge th is fact so as to no t ov ers im pl ify ou r ch arac te riz at io ns of

de ci si on s an d a ls o t o g ua rd ag ai ns t i nt erp ret in g t he m ere p res en ce o f su ch is su es as

sh owi ng th at t h e y a r e real an d co m pe ti ng in a m at eri al se ns e. In m y vi ew, th e

m ajor it y m ak es th is m is ta ke

.

-1 7-In Lath er v. Bea dl e Co un ty, 87 9 F.2 d 3 6 5

, 3 6 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ), ci te d by th e

m ajor it y

, we fo un d th e di sc ret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on di d no t ap pl y to de ci si on s of

a go ve rn m en t ph y si ci an pr ov id in g pa ti en t tre at m en t. The m ajor it y de sc ri b e s t h e

go ve rn m en t act or in Lath er as "ad va nc in g a si ng ul ar go al

, i.e., pr ov id in g ap pr op ria te

m ed ic al care to a pa ti en t." Ant e at 14

. In se tt in g fo rth th is de sc rip ti on

, th e m ajor it y

fai ls to ack no wled ge th e co m pl ex co ns id erat io ns in he ren t in th e pr ov is io n of m ed ic al

care

. Beh in d ev ery in di vi du al m ed ic al tre at m en t reco m m en da ti on is a te ch n i c a l

med ic al di ag no si s co up le d wit h a cal cu lu s th at ba la nc es th e co st -eff ect iv en es s o f

te st s, pr oc ed ur es

, an d m ed ic at io ns ag ai ns t th e in di vi du al pa ti en t's well ne ss go al s, th e

et hi cal st ric tu res of th e pr of es si on an d so ci et y

, an d la rg er pu bl ic -h eal th co nc ern s. Fo r

ex am pl e, th e ag e-re la te d us e of PSA te st s (wit h th ei r m an y fal se po s i t i v es ) or th e

ov eru se of an ti bi ot ic s are m at t e r s o f su bs ta nt ia l so ci et al co nc ern th at

, in an y

in di vi du al cas e, m ay ha ve gr av e im pl ic at io ns fo r an in di vi du al pa ti en t. Nev ert he le ss

,

th e pr es en ce of so ci al

, eco no m ic

, an d po li ti cal co nc ern s in he ren t in m ed ic al de ci si on s

are no t su ffi ci en tl y "re al an d co m pe ti ng " in th e co nt ex t of in di vi du al pa ti en t tre at m en t

to tri gg er ap pl ic at io n of th e di sc ret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on un de r t h e F TCA. I

th eref or e di sa gr ee wit h th e m ajor it y 's at te m pt to di st in gu is h th e pr es en t cas e fro m

Lath er by ch arac te riz in g th e ph y si ci an as a go ve rn m en t act or wit h a "s in gu la r go al ."

Rat he r, Lath er de m on st rat es th e ne ed fo r ou r co ur t to op en ly ack no wled ge th at few

if an y de ci si on s are m ad e in th e pu rs ui t of a si ng ul ar go al an d th at so ci al

, eco no m ic

,

an d po li ti c a l po li cy co ns id erat io ns can be id en ti fie d be hi nd m os t de ci si on s. It

rem ai ns ou r ta sk to so rt th e whe at fro m th e ch aff an d de te rm in e, in each cas e, whe th er

an y su ch po li cy

is su es are " real an d c om

pe ti ng " i n a ny m ean in gf

ul way

.

In reac hi ng m

y co nc lu si on th at the di sc ret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on sh ou ld no t

ap pl y in th is cas e, I reco gn iz e th e reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n th at ari se s in fav or o f i t s

ap pl i c a t i o n whe n a co ur t co nc lu de s th at so m e de gr ee of di sc ret io n ex is ts

. Uni te d

St at es v. Gau be rt, 49 9 U.S. 31 5, 324 (1 99 1) ("When es ta bl is he d go ve rn m en ta l po li cy

,

as ex pr es se d o r i m

pl ie d by st at ut e, reg ul at io n, or ag en cy gu id el in es

, al lo ws a

Gov ern m en t ag en t to ex erci se di sc ret io n, it m us t be pr es um ed th at th e ag en t's act s are

-1 8-gr ou nd ed in po li cy whe n ex erci si ng th at di sc ret io n. "). I al so reject cat eg or ic al

tre at m en t, as ur ge d by th e Herd en s in th is cas e, th at wou ld dr aw br ig ht li ne s be twee n

"o pe rat io na l" a n d " pl an ni ng " de ci si on s, si te -s pe ci fic an d ge ne ral ly ap pl ic ab le

de ci si on s, co st -rel at ed an d no n- co st -rel at ed de ci si on s, or ev en te ch ni cal /p ro fes si on al

an d la y pe rs on de ci si on s. See Id

. at 32 5– 26 (rejec ti ng cat eg or ic al tre at m en ts su ch as

"o pe rat io na l" v e r s u s " pl an ni ng " an d st at in g, "'i t is th e na tu re of th e co nd uc t, rat he r

th an th e st at us of th e act or ' th at go ve rn s whe th er th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on

ap pl ie s" (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Vari g Airl in es

, 46 7 U.S. 79 7, 81 3 (1 98 4) )). St il l,

ou r reject io n of cat eg or ic al tre at m en t can no t le ad us to ig no re th e ne ed to di st in gu is h

be twee n th os e cas es whe re po li cy co nc ern s are su bs ta nt ia l an d i mp o rta nt fact or s at

th e le ve l of de ci si on m ak in g in vo lv ed in a cas e an d th os e cas es whe re su ch co nc ern s

are m erel y ba ck gr ou nd no is e. Here, I am l e f t w i t h th e fir m im

pr es si on th at

Mo ech ni g ' s l i mite d au th or it y di d no t ex te nd to th e type of di sc ret io n Co ng res s

in te nd ed to sh ie ld fro m

su it . Accor di ng ly, I di ss en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 9-