Opinion ID: 787330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Administrative and District Court Proceedings

Text: 22 In September 1999, Lamers stopped making required compensating payments into the settlement fund. Instead, Lamers filed an administrative petition with the USDA for exemption and/or modification of the provisions of Order No. 30. Lamers' petition alleged that Order No. 30 violated equal protection and contravened the AMAA by permitting unfair trade practices. Lamers sought relief in the form of an order exempting it from pooling and from the obligation to make payments into the producer settlement fund. After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained Order No. 30 and dismissed Lamers' petition. Lamers appealed to a USDA judicial officer. The judicial officer affirmed the ALJ. Lamers then brought an action in the district court, and the USDA counterclaimed for enforcement of the Secretary's decision. 23 The district court affirmed the Secretary. It determined that, as to Lamers'unfair trade practices claim, Lamers was attempting to sue under a non-existent right. As to Lamers' equal protection claim, the district court noted that the economic regulation was subject to rational basis scrutiny and concluded that the provisions of the regulatory scheme survived challenge under that standard. The district court subsequently ordered Lamers to pay $850,931.26 to the settlement fund. Lamers timely appeals. II