A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit in North Carolina challenging the process the government used to charge a man with entering a “sore” horse into a competition. The decision arrived one day after the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the case.
Joe Manis of Laurinburg challenged the US Department of Agriculture’s use of an administrative law judge to address a 2023 charge that Manis violated the federal Horse Protection Act. Manis’ lawyers from the Pacific Legal Foundation raised multiple constitutional objections to the ALJ process.
US District Judge William Osteen issued a 64-page order Tuesday rejecting each of Manis’ complaints.
“First, this court finds that the USDA Judicial Officer holds a position established by law and is ‘supervised and directed’ by a principal officer,” Osteen wrote. “Accordingly, his exercise of power conforms with the Appointments Clause. Additionally, because the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to completely excise the Judicial Officer from the adjudicative process and herself directly review the ALJ decisions and has the discretion to review the Judicial Officer’s decisions, the ALJs are properly supervised inferior officers.”
“Second, this court finds that the USDA ALJs’ dual-layer tenure protection has not inflicted any compensable harm upon Plaintiff and therefore even if the removal protections are unconstitutional, Plaintiff’s claim must fail as a matter of law,” Osteen added.
Manis had argued that any legal action against him should have been filed in a federal court established under Article III of the US Constitution.
“Third, this court finds that the HPA provision at issue here falls within the ‘public rights’ exception to Article III adjudication because it is unknown to the common law,” Osteen explained. “Accordingly, agency adjudication does not violate Article III and the Seventh Amendment poses no independent bar to the adjudication.”
Osteen’s decision arrived one day after a unanimous three-judge 4th Circuit panel refused to grant an injunction in the case. Appellate judges agreed Monday that Manis failed to show that he would suffer “irreparable harm” without an injunction.
“Tennessee Walking Horses are known for their distinctive, smooth gaits,” appellate judges wrote in a unanimous unsigned unpublished opinion. “These horses are entered into horse shows and competitions featuring their gaits. The distinctive walking patterns are ‘achieved through selective breeding and training with equipment.’”
“Unfortunately, the distinctive gaits can also be replicated through abuse of the horse,” the opinion continued. “Making the forelimbs of the horse ‘sore’ by inflicting pain requires the horse to quickly lift its feet when it walks, which mimics the desired gait. In response to this practice of abuse, and to ensure fairness in Tennessee Walking Horse competitions, Congress enacted the 1970” Horse Protection Act.
The HPA makes it illegal to show or exhibit a “sore” horse, 4th Circuit judges explained. Inspectors at horse shows can disqualify a “sore” horse, “and the liable individuals may be banned from further participation in horse competitions.”
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service filed a “sore” horse administrative complaint against Manis in May 2023. APHIS accused Manis of entering a “sore” horse into a Virginia horse show. A US Department of Agriculture administrative law judge was slated to hear the complaint.
Manis sought to have the administrative proceeding dismissed or stayed on constitutional grounds. He filed suit in a North Carolina federal court in March 2024. The suit alleged four constitutional violations.
“First, Appellant asserts that the process violates the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution because the Judicial Officer exercises principal officer authority without appointment by the President or confirmation by the Senate,” the appellate opinion explained.
“Second, Appellant asserts that USDA ALJs are unconstitutionally protected from removal by two layers of tenure protection, in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. USDA ALJs can only be removed for good cause, which must be determined by the tenure protected Merit Systems Protection Board (‘MSPB’). Therefore, the President cannot determine what constitutes good cause for removing an ALJ without first finding that the good cause determination of the MSPB is so unreasonable that it constitutes sufficient cause for removal. Appellant argues that these two layers of protection prevent the President from fulfilling his Article II obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed,” appellate judges wrote.
“Third, Appellant alleges that adjudication of violations of the HPA requires a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment,” the opinion continued. “Fourth, Appellant claims that the USDA HPA adjudication process violates Article III of the Constitution because it adjudicates private rights before an agency and not in an Article III court.”
Manis sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. US District Judge William Osteen rejected both. Osten determined that Manis “failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.”
Judges Robert Bruce King, James Wynn, and Stephanie Thacker of the 4th Circuit heard oral arguments in December 2024. In February the USDA’s administrative judge ruled against Manis. He faced a $10 civil penalty and one-year ban from horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
Appellate judges “decline to address Appellant’s likelihood of success on the merits,” they wrote Monday. “Instead, we conclude that Appellant fails to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.”
Manis urged the 4th Circuit to rely on a 2023 precedent case, Axon Enterprise Inc. v. FTC, to find irreparable harm “whenever a litigant is required to litigate in an allegedly unconstitutionally structured agency proceeding.”
“That is incorrect,” the judges wrote.
“Appellant claims that because an unconstitutionally structured proceeding constitutes an injury sufficient to confer collateral district court jurisdiction it must also suffice to establish the showing of irreparable harm required for injunctive relief,” the opinion explained. “Appellant is incorrect, and Axon does not help his cause.”
“Axon did not address the distinct question we are presented with in this case: that is, whether being subject to an allegedly constitutionally deficient proceeding necessarily demonstrates the required showing of irreparable harm necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction,” appellate judges wrote.
“At most, Axon holds that a litigant can pursue a federal court challenge to an allegedly unconstitutionally structured agency proceeding while the proceeding remains before the agency. Crucially, ‘it does not say that every agency proceeding already underway must immediately be halted because of an asserted constitutional flaw,’” the opinion continued.
“Extending the holding of Axon in this circumstance would require a per se finding of irreparable harm whenever a plaintiff alleges constitutional deficiency in a collateral proceeding challenging their subjection to an agency proceeding,” the judges explained. “We will not make that leap.”
The post Judge throws out NC ‘sore horse’ case challenging federal administrative procedure first appeared on Carolina Journal.