Elbert v. United States Department of Agriculture
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-01574
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Elbert v. United States Department of Agriculture, Judge Tunheim denied kidney-bean farmers' request for a court order forcing federal agricultural agencies to redo their crop-insurance review or set a retroactive 2015 harvest price, and closed the case, because the farmers lacked a clear legal right to those remedies and could instead challenge the agency's decision by filing a new lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Dark red kidney bean farmers in Minnesota who purchased federally backed crop revenue-protection insurance in 2015 and were unable to recover revenue losses when a policy contingency provision made their coverage essentially worthless; also potentially other farmers who purchased similar Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement policies through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation program.
What happened
Elbert v. United States Department of Agriculture is a long-running dispute brought by Minnesota dark red kidney bean farmers who purchased federally backed crop revenue-protection insurance in 2015. The insurance was supposed to pay out when fall harvest prices dropped below spring projected prices, but a backup provision in the policy set the harvest price equal to the projected price whenever there was not enough market data — effectively making the revenue protection worthless when that situation arose in 2015. This Court had previously found that the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board violated federal administrative law when it approved a policy that differed from what had been submitted for review, and ordered the Board to reconsider the policy as if it were starting fresh.
On remand, the Board consulted five outside experts, all of whom recommended keeping the disputed backup rule — setting the harvest price equal to the projected price when data is insufficient — and the Board formally adopted that language. Dissatisfied, the farmers returned to court asking for a writ of mandamus, which is a court order compelling a government official or agency to perform a specific legal duty. They wanted the court to order the agency to redo the review yet again, or to search through historical data and set an actual 2015 harvest price retroactively.
Judge Tunheim denied the petition and closed the case for three independent reasons. First, the court's prior remand order gave the Board discretion to reach any conclusion after reconsidering — it did not guarantee the farmers any particular outcome, so they had no clear and undisputable right to further review. Second, because the Board exercised genuine discretion in consulting experts and deciding, a mandamus order is legally unavailable — such orders are reserved for situations where an agency has absolutely no discretion. Third, the farmers have an alternative path: filing a brand-new lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act to argue that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. Because all three requirements for mandamus were missing, Judge Tunheim denied the petition, denied the related motion to amend the complaint, and closed this case, directing the farmers to any future challenge through a new, separate lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Elbert v. United States Department of Agriculture, Civil No. 18-1574 (JRT/SGE)
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge
- August 8, 2025
Background and Prior Proceedings
Plaintiffs Rich Elbert, Jeff A. Kosek, Reichmann Land & Cattle LLP, Ludowese A.E. Inc., and Michael Stamer are Minnesota farmers who grow dark red kidney beans. In 2015, they purchased crop insurance under a Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement (DBRE) policy that was supposed to provide revenue protection — covering losses when the fall harvest price fell below the spring projected price.
The policy originated from a 508(h) submission (a process under 7 U.S.C. § 1508(h) by which private parties propose insurance products to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board for approval) made in 2011 by Watts and Associates, Inc. and others. The original submission included a contingency procedure for situations where the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Bean Market News lacked sufficient data to establish a harvest price. After Board approval in 2012, the policy language was rewritten — without being resubmitted to the Board — to state that if a harvest price could not be calculated, 'the harvest price will be equal to the projected price.' In 2015, insufficient AMS data triggered this provision, effectively converting the plaintiffs' revenue protection policies into yield protection policies and preventing them from recovering revenue losses.
This case has a lengthy history. In Elbert I (2020), the court granted summary judgment to Defendants. In Elbert II (2021), the court reversed, finding the FCIC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — the federal law governing how agencies must conduct rulemaking and review — when it approved policy language that differed materially from what had been submitted and reviewed. As a remedy in Elbert III (2022), the court ordered the FCIC Board to reconsider whether to alter the originally approved contingency language 'anew as if it had been properly resubmitted for approval in the first place.' The court specifically directed it to 'consider whether to amend the contingency pricing mechanism for dark red kidney beans in Minnesota for the 2015 crop year or to leave the originally approved method in place of having the FCIC establish a price.'
Agency Action on Remand
Following remand, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) reopened expert review. Five experts unanimously recommended maintaining the existing policy language — i.e., setting the harvest price equal to the projected price when AMS data is insufficient — citing transparency, objectivity, and the availability of yield protection as an alternative for farmers who did not want that risk. One expert suggested premium refunds if the contingency triggered; the RMA noted a premium adjustment 'could be appropriate' but called the impact 'very small.' The Board formally adopted policy language retaining the projected-price-equals-harvest-price contingency.
Plaintiffs' Mandamus Petition
Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, seeking to compel Defendants to either (1) reevaluate the contingency pricing mechanism again, or (2) retroactively search through data to establish an actual 2015 harvest price for dark red kidney beans in Minnesota. A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a government officer or agency to perform a specific duty; it is available only in extraordinary circumstances.
Legal Standard
A writ of mandamus requires the petitioner to show: (1) a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2) the respondent has a nondiscretionary duty to honor that right; and (3) the petitioner lacks an alternative, adequate remedy. Mitchael v. Colvin, 809 F.3d 1050, 1054 (8th Cir. 2016).
Court's Analysis — Three Independent Grounds for Denial
1. No clear and indisputable right to relief: The court's prior remand order required the Board to 'reconsider' and 'consider whether to amend' — language that gave the Board discretion to reach any defensible conclusion. The order did not mandate a particular outcome, did not guarantee a second reevaluation if plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the result, and did not establish any right to demand a retroactive 2015 harvest price. Therefore, plaintiffs lacked the clear and indisputable right required for mandamus.
2. No nondiscretionary duty: Because the remand order afforded the Board broad discretion in how to respond, defendants did not have a nondiscretionary duty to honor any particular demand. The Board exercised that discretion by consulting experts and formally adopting the policy language. Under Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 63 (2004), mandamus is limited to compelling 'a precise and definite act over which an agency has no discretion whatsoever.' The court acknowledged it might have reached a different substantive conclusion about whether the pricing method adequately protects farmers, but that disagreement does not make mandamus appropriate.
3. Alternative remedy available: Plaintiffs may challenge the Board's remand decision through a new APA claim in a separate lawsuit. An APA claim would allow substantive judicial review of whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful — the proper vehicle for challenging agency decisions. The court noted that such review must be conducted on a complete administrative record, reinforcing that it cannot be done through equitable powers in this closed case. The court cited the parallel Michigan litigation, Ackerman Bros. Farms, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 1:17-11779, 2025 WL 1513950 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2025), where that court similarly directed plaintiffs to bring a separate APA case.
Rulings
- Plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandamus [Docket No. 236]: DENIED - Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings [Docket No. 253]: DENIED (because the case is being closed and no amendment could provide the requested relief) - Case: CLOSED; judgment to be entered accordingly
The court noted in a footnote that if plaintiffs file a new APA claim in the District of Minnesota, they should identify it as a related case to this one, which would typically result in assignment to Judge Tunheim.
The court's conclusion observed, candidly, that 'for reasons that confound this Court, Defendants have continued to insist that a virtually worthless insurance product adequately protects the interests of farmers' — but stated that the Board followed the remand instructions and that mandamus is therefore legally unavailable.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.