RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A horse owner who was investigated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for bringing a sored horse to a show argued in front of a panel of Fourth Circuit judges Tuesday that the adjudication process violates his Seventh Amendment right to a trial.
Since the USDA attempted to fine him more than $20 for violations of the Horse Protection Act, Joe Manis says he’s entitled to trot the case out before a jury of his peers.
The department raised claims against Manis in 2023, and began an internal adjudication process against him. Manis then sued, claiming that the department’s internal judicial officers lacked authority because they weren’t appointed to the position.
His suit is ongoing in the Middle District of North Carolina, with summary judgment pending, but Manis appealed a federal judge’s denial of a preliminary injunction.
Attorney Graham White represented the U.S. Department of Agriculture before a three-judge panel Tuesday and argued the court should affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction, should find that there is no irreparable harm and does not need to investigate constitutional issues in the case.
“The plaintiff’s argument that the judicial officer has to hold an office created by statute is contrary to the plain text of the appointments clause,” he said. “All that requires is for Congress to vest by law the appointment of inferior officers and department heads.”
Plus, department has amended its complaint and isn’t still seeking a penalty of more than $20, White said, so Manis doesn’t reach his Seventh Amendment claim; to weigh it would mean the court deciding an issue on which other U.S. circuit courts differ.
“There’s no need, again, for this court to address this issue,” White said. “A ruling on the Jarkesy issue, on the Seventh Amendment issue, would be enormously consequential for the federal government,” he added, referring to a June Supreme Court ruling.
In SEC v. Jarkesy, the high court found that the Securities and Exchange Commission violated a hedge fund manager’s rights by having an in-house administrative law judge decide a fraud case against him instead of a jury.
Joshua Robbins, representing Manis, said his client suffers every day from being subjected to an unconstitutional process.
“Mr. Manis is suffering?” challenged U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King, a Bill Clinton appointee. “I thought you were worried about the horse.”
Robbins pointed to another Supreme Court case, the 2021 United States v. Arthrex, to support his argument.
“I think that the Department of Agriculture’s concession that the judicial officer’s decisions cannot be reviewed by the secretary is a concession that ends the appointments clause claim in Mr. Manis’ favor,” he said. “After Arthrex, executive branch adjudicators have to have their decisions reviewed by principal officers in order for them to be inferior officers. There’s no dispute here that the judicial officer is not a principal officer, he’s not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.”
Despite the department’s judicial officer not being appointed, they have authority delegated to them by the secretary of agriculture, who is accountable for the officer’s decisions even if the secretary cannot review them, White argued.
U.S. Circuit Judge James Wynn Jr., a Barack Obama appointee, questioned how far that accountability goes.
“As you say, it’s not reviewable, but nonetheless that judicial officer is accountable,” Wynn said. “I’m really having a hard time figuring out, how is he accountable? I mean, in what way?”
Sored horses and protected appointments
In the underlying investigation, the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service claims Manis he brought a sored horse — one that has been burned or otherwise injured to cause the exaggerated gait coveted in well-bred and trained Tennessee Walking Horses — to a horse show. Under the Horse Protection Act, owners are not banned from soring their horses, but they are not allowed to exhibit them or use them in shows.
Violating that rule can be punished by a fine of up to $2,000, criminal penalties and disqualification from showing or exhibiting horses.
Cases brought by the Department of Agriculture are heard by an administrative law judge, and their decision can only be appealed to the department’s judicial officer. Manis claims that the judicial officer is exercising principal officer functions without being appointed, which causes the administrative law judges to be improperly supervised.
Those judges are unconstitutionally protected from removal, he claims.
U.S. District Judge William Osteen Jr.’s disagreed in his denial of a preliminary injunction.
“Though Congress itself did not explicitly create the office of judicial officer, it did explicitly grant the secretary authority to do so,” he wrote in his opinion and order. “The fact that the judicial officer’s position was created by the secretary through regulations pursuant to a statutory authorization, rather than directly through a statute, does not mean that the judicial officer’s office was not statutorily authorized.”
The U.S. circuit has split on constitutionality when it comes to the ability to remove administrative law judges: The Ninth Circuit found it constitutional, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed when it came to SEC administrative law judges.
U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker, a Barack Obama appointee, also participated in the panel. Neither Robbin nor White responded to a request for comment.