Lawsuit

Florida Successfully Defends Lab-Grown Meat Ban in Court

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:24:11 GMT

A federal appeals court ruled that Florida, the first state to ban lab-grown meat, can continue to enforce state law SB 1084, keeping the state’s restrictions fully in place.

The March 23 ruling from a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban does not conflict with federal regulations.

Upside Foods, a California company that was approved to make cultivated chicken for U.S. sale in 2022, brought the case forward. The company argued that federal oversight should override Florida’s restrictions, but the court disagreed.

“Because Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat does not regulate Upside’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations, federal law does not preempt SB 1084,” wrote Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher, as reported by the Florida Phoenix .

SB 1084, which took effect in July 2024, bans the manufacture, sale and distribution of cultivated meat. Six other states — Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska and Texas — have enacted similar bans since Florida took action.

Florida leaders who backed the ban celebrated the ruling. CBS 12 reports that Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson said it protects traditional farmers and argued that lab-grown meat isn’t proven safe. Gov. Ron DeSantis also praised the decision, saying lab-grown meat won’t be allowed in Florida.

Cultivated meat supporters say these bans block a growing industry, eliminate future jobs, and shut down marketplace competition before the products can gain a foothold, CBS 12 reports.

Signed by DeSantis in 2024 to support traditional agriculture, the state law makes violations punishable by up to 60 days in jail.

“Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere,” DeSantis said in Food Safety News in 2024. “We are not doing that in the State of Florida.”

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:26:25 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

American Farm Bureau Terminates Illinois Farm Bureau's Membership, Illinois is Taking Filing a Lawsuit

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:18:32 GMT

The Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB) is no longer a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The American Farm Bureau Federation has decided to terminate the Illinois Farm Bureau’s membership, effective Dec. 20, 2024. AFBF President Zippy Duvall announced the termination, which is expected to have a significant impact on farmers in Illinois.

The IFB has filed a lawsuit against the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The lawsuit was filed in McLean County, Illinois. It claims this termination violates a 1990 settlement agreement between the two organizations, which allegedly allowed IFB to continue using the name “Illinois Farm Bureau.”

Duvall stated that the decision to vote out the Illinois Farm Bureau is related to maintaining “farmer control” of organizational decisions. The IFB argues that AFBF’s action threatens to deprive them of important membership rights and benefits, including a voice in national farm policy issues.

IFB President Brian Duncan expressed that they have “no desire to leave AFBF” and believes that AFBF is choosing to abandon more than 70,000 Illinois-based farmer members. The lawsuit seeks to halt AFBF’s decision to expel the Illinois Farm Bureau.

A letter from AFBF President Zippy Duvall to state farm bureau presidents said the action comes after a failed mediation session on Monday. The move is in retaliation for a decision by the Illinois Farm Bureau’s affiliate, Country Financial, to drop a Farm Bureau membership eligibility requirement for non-farm insurance policy holders in Illinois.

“The membership decision is expected to cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of farm bureau members, to the detriment of Illinois Farmers, Illinois County Farm Bureau organizations, IFB [Illinois Farm Bureau] and the entire Farm Bureau organization,” wrote Duvall, a third-generation dairy farmer from Georgia who has headed the AFBF since 2016.

Country Financial told customers in September it would no longer require Farm Bureau membership for nonfarm policies. Membership costs about $20 per year. AFBF receives $5 of those dues. Country Financial operates in 19 states. It is the largest farm insurer in Illinois.

The expulsion of the Illinois Farm Bureau from the national federation marks a significant change in the relationship between these agricultural organizations. The IFB has about 400,000 members. More than 70,000 are farmers, farmland owners, and agriculture industry professionals, according to the IFB website. Its farm membership comprises about 75% of all Illinois farmers.

The IFB has been operating for over 100 years. It will no longer be part of the larger national network. This separation could potentially affect various aspects of support and representation for Illinois farmers, including:

Legislative advocacy at the federal level
Access to national resources and programs
Participation in national policymaking for agriculture

Of note:

While the Illinois Farm Bureau will no longer be part of the American Farm Bureau Federation, it will continue to operate as a state-level organization.

Attorneys Challenge Court Decision Dismissing Tyson Workers' COVID-19 Lawsuits

Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:54:52 GMT

Representing the estates of Tyson workers who succumbed to COVID-19 complications during the 2020 pandemic, attorneys are urging a reevaluation of a court decision that dismissed their legal actions, according to a local news source .

Judge John Sullivan ruled in October of this year that the lawsuits, brought by representatives of Kabeya “Axel” Mukendi and Felicie Joseph, lacked jurisdiction in civil court. This ruling emphasized that workplace injuries fall under the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation system, not the judiciary.

Sullivan’s decision followed precedent of a January 2023 ruling in suits brought by representatives of Isidro Fernandez, Sedika Buljic, Reberiano Leno Garcia, and Jose Luis Ayala Jr. The court found these suits failed to establish claims of wanton neglect necessary for jurisdiction.

The news source notes Sullivan’s words in his ruling: “While the court recognizes the tragic circumstances that arose from the situation, the law requires that plaintiffs’ claims proceed under the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation pursuant to the IWCA. This Court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claims.”

The opinion further states, “The court does not find that the plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts as to each individual defendant that rise to the level of gross negligence amounting to wanton neglect that would remove these matters from the jurisdiction of the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation.”

According to records, workers’ compensation claims, which provide limited opportunities for damages, have been filed.

Attorneys John Rausch, Thomas Frerichs, and Mel Orchard III, handling the Mukendi and Joseph cases, have reportedly requested the district to reconsider the ruling in papers filed earlier this month. However, the news source indicates that a previous challenge by attorneys in other suits was defeated in district court.

The lawsuits allege that Tyson officials misled employees at Tyson Fresh Meats in the spring of 2020 about the dangers of the coronavirus and the virus’s presence at the hog-processing facility.

NC Attorney General Urges SCOTUS to Take Up Ag-Gag Law

Tue, 15 Aug 2023 19:02:50 GMT

The North Carolina State Attorney General’s Office has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of North Carolina’s ag-gag law, twice struck down by lower courts as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

But animal activist groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and other opponents of the law told the high court the Fourth Circuit’s ruling should stand.

In 2015, North Carolina passed the Property Protection Act to prevent activists from misrepresenting themselves in order to gain access and secretly film activities in the plants. It allowed courts to assess civil penalties of $5,000 per day on employees who documented alleged wrongdoing – in video, audio, or written work – from a business’s non-public areas, and then passed that information to anyone besides the employer or law enforcement.

Two years later, a federal judge declared the law violated Constitutional provisions protecting free speech.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, along with the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in May. The state argued a Supreme Court decision is necessary to clarify the various courts’ legal interpretations, as well as the nation’s “patchwork” of similar laws. In a half-dozen other states, the courts have also struck down the laws as unconstitutional or greatly limited their scope, NC News Online reports .

Last week, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Animal Defense Fund and several other groups responded in a court filing. They argue the law unconstitutionally suppresses their right to conduct undercover animal-cruelty investigations and to publicize what they learn, Law360 reports .

The activist groups claim the law restricts employees from talking publicly about what’s happening at their workplace or in areas of their workplace that are not open to the general public. They contend that the law even tries to penalize actions like reporting problems to government agencies or speaking out about important issues in front of lawmakers.

The state argued that certain types of speech, like audio-visual recordings, should not be protected by the First Amendment in certain situations. The state also questioned whether the First Amendment should apply at all on private property, regardless of the type of speech involved.

In separate petitions for writ of certiorari, North Carolina and the Farm Bureau said the First Amendment does not protect the animal and environmental groups’ potentially illegal activities as defined by the act, Law360 reports.

“The animal groups slammed the Farm Bureau and state’s arguments. They said the state conceded audiovisual recording is typically ‘protected speech’ while at the same time arguing any such recordings should be excluded from First Amendment protection when it occurs as part of the groups’ work,” the Law360 article said.

The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation’s Secretary and General Counsel, Jake Parker, said the animal groups’ brief underscored why the Supreme Court should take the case.

“Fundamental private property rights are at stake here, and the activists misread the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases to justify blatant invasions of private businesses,” Parker said in a statement Thursday. “This case is an excellent vehicle for the court to clarify that the First Amendment does not immunize trespassing and theft.”

Read More:

Kansas’ ‘Ag-Gag’ Law Denied a Revisit by Supreme Court

“Targeted” Law in Iowa Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/110997

4 Items EPA Discussed this Week that Will Impact Producers

Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:36:19 GMT

Michael Regan, EPA administrator, appeared before the House Ag Committee on Wednesday to discuss everything from WOTUS to the farm bill. Here are the highlights that will directly impact producers:

1. Year-Round E15

EPA is not yet ready to issue an emergency declaration to allow E15 fuel to be sold during the summer months as they did in 2022. While Regan said that many of the conditions are still in place that prompted the 2022 emergency waiver, he said EPA staff has not yet brought him enough evidence to issue an emergency waiver.

He cautioned that administrative moves by the Trump administration to allow year-round E15 sales did not survive court challenges. But he said no options are off the table as of yet and that EPA was continuing to work with the Department of Energy and others on the situation.

2. Biodiesel Blending Levels

Proposed 2023, 2024 and 2025 Renewable Fuel Standard volumes for biomass-based diesel and advanced volumes do not match the industry’s current production. Regan explained:

“Let me just say that in 2022 we set the highest volumes ever in EPA’s history. So we’re proud of that and what we plan to do is continue that trajectory. As you know we proposed a rule and we’re in that proposal phase and there aren’t too many things that I can comment during this time of comment but what I can say is that 2023, 2024, and 2025 will continue that positive trajectory.”

According to Regan, his team is taking comments from industry stakeholders and have been offered “a lot” of data that Regan believes will be “reflected in the final rule.”

3. The Future of Biofuels

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), asked Regan the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. Last week, EPA announced emission standards for new cars. That announcement led to concerns from the biofuels industry and farmers in regard to the administration’s view on the role biofuels have been playing and can continue to play in reducing emissions and powering our cars and trucks.

Regan was asked what he would you say to our farmers and our domestic biofuels industry – the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. His response:

“Well, I think we see a significant role. It’s called walking and chewing gum at the same time. I think that when you look at the policies of this EPA, and the investments that we’re making in biofuels and advanced biofuels, just by the last RVO volumes we set and the ones we’re anticipating setting, and then the partnership that I have with Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Buttigieg as we look at the role of biofuels with aviation fuels, we see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complimentary to the EV fuels future. And so we think that we can do both – we see a balance here. And in both cases, we’re trying to follow the markets, follow technology, and follow the science as well.”

As for the recent EPA proposal which would tighten tailpipe emissions and force more electric vehicles (EVs) to be used, Regan said the plans do not work against biofuels. EPA is working to implement complimentary policies on that front. “We see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complementary to the EV fuels future,” he said.

4. Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule on wetlands protections and declared, “Any goodwill the administration has built with farmers and ranchers is gone.”

House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) mirrored Bacon’s comments.

“Historically, EPA has over-regulated the agriculture industry,” criticizing agency actions on pesticides, electric vehicles, and WOTUS.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on an Idaho case that would restrict federally recognized wetlands to territory with a direct surface connection to a waterway.

Regan said the EPA issued its WOTUS rule last December in the face of “looming litigation” over not having a regulation. Courts have put on hold the recent Biden/EPA rule in 26 states.

Despite “enduring” 4.5 hours in the committee hearing, Regan shows promise in working more in favor of rural America, according to Thompson. He says Regan called him following the meeting to “emphasize how much he wants to do a better job” of working with the House Ag Committee.

What’s Wrong with the Current Waters of the U.S. Rule?

Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:26:01 GMT

The latest Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) definition—put into motion by the Biden administration on March 20—was met with a wave of backlash from the ag industry for its “overreaching” jurisdiction.

That opposition was validated on Wednesday when a U.S. District Court Judge, Daniel Hovland, granted an injunction that blocks enforcement of the WOTUS rule in 24 states.

“An injunction at this early stage can avoid the massive waste of resources and delayed projects in pursuit of permits that may soon be legally irrelevant,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote in his ruling.

Related story: What Bodies of Water are Considered WOTUS?

Hovland’s decision follows a similar injunction that was filed in Texas on March 20, which effectively blocked WOTUS enforcement in Texas and Idaho. He says the EPA’s final WOTUS rule was premature, as the pending U.S. Supreme Court WOTUS case will settle the dispute in all affected states.

So, what makes EPA’s final WOTUS rule “unlawful” and worthy of an injunction? Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs at NCBA, says it comes down to bureaucracy.

What’s Wrong with WOTUS?

Under the current rule, the following bodies of water are considered WOTUS and therefore subject to federal regulation:

• Traditional navigable waters
• Tributaries that contribute perennial or intermittent flow to such waters
• Certain ditches that meet specific criteria related to flow and function
• Certain lakes and ponds
• Impoundments of otherwise jurisdictional waters
• Wetlands that are adjacent to jurisdictional waters

Lane says the EPA’s WOTUS “patchwork” in words like “certain lakes and ponds” has carved-out room for discretion. He says this discretion will rob policymakers and landowners of time and money.

“As I understand it, this rule says EPA is going to determine jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis—that just blows me away,” Lane says. “This is never the way you want a bureaucracy to interact with your private businesses.”

Richard Gupton, senior vice president of public policy and counsel at the Ag Retailers Association, echoed Lane.

“Rushing the new rule out only served to increase uncertainty for the ag retail industry while eroding [landowners] trust in the EPA’s deliberations and stakeholder consultations.”

The remedy, according to Lane, is for EPA to define exactly what the land and water “safe harbors” are and remove any room for opinion. And Lane isn’t alone in that thought.

“This isn’t just a philosophical dispute: farmers and ranchers in the remaining states are left with no clear way to determine where federal jurisdiction begins and ends on their own property,” said Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president, in a press release . “With the rule now on hold in more than half the country, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps should do the right thing by listening to our legitimate concerns and rewriting the rule to draw a bright line of jurisdiction.”

Accidents Happen. Don't Lose the Farm Because of Them

Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:04:27 GMT

It’s well after lunch, mid-afternoon at an all-day grower meeting, but the 20-plus farmers sitting on metal folding chairs arranged in a half circle are focused intently on the speaker in front of them.

“Only 50% to 60% of farmers going down the road hauling a load of hay, driving a semi with grain or some other piece of equipment are doing so legally,” Fred Whitford tells them.

He pauses momentarily, reflects on what he’s just said, then nods his head: “Yeah, I’m pretty comfortable that’s true. It doesn’t take much to be at fault; it could be as simple as driving on bald tires.”

The farmers look around at each other nervously as Whitford builds on his initial comment.

“If I don’t have grooves in my tires I can’t move water, and I can hydroplane. When I go to brake, I don’t have braking power and the truck won’t stop.…What then?”

Maybe the truck just ends up in a ditch. At the other extreme, the driver has a major accident with a motorist that causes death or life-long incapacitation.

It’s not uncommon. Data from the past decade show that while only 19 of every 100 Americans live in rural areas, more than 50% of all fatal roadway accidents take place there, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

It’s a heavy topic, but Whitford wades into it, intent on helping the farmers present prepare for if or when calamity strikes.

Pitfalls To Avoid
One common problem is farmers tend to have insufficient insurance, says Whitford, Clinical Engagement Professor, Botany and Plant Pathology and Director of Pesticide Programs at Purdue University.

“Say you have $2 million dollars of liability coverage, which roughly covers your net worth. One of your vehicles is involved in an accident that causes the death of a child.

The jury awards the child’s parents $5 million. Your insurance company would only be responsible for covering the first $2 million, while you would be responsible for the remaining $3 million,” he says. “That could bankrupt your business.”

Whitford brings up another common issue he sees.

“Who has their farm in an LLC?” he asks the group.

A couple of farmers raise their hands. Most are studying the floor. One mumbles that his land and equipment are in a single corporation.

“Well, sir, that’s not a good idea,” Whitford politely tells the farmer. “I can go into the corporation, get all the insurance money and then I can sell the land. I see it happen all the time.”

Whitford tells the farmer to go home and put his land in a corporation separate from his equipment. “You want to protect the one asset that brings you income,” he advises.

“This is why investing the time with an attorney is so vital.”

Whitford also encourages the group to meet with their insurance agent. “Ask them some questions, like ‘How much am I covered for? And what does that mean?’”

Insurance agents often tell Whitford that when they ask their farm clients to come in for an annual review many don’t even return their calls. “Not getting your annual insurance review is lost opportunity to protect your assets,” he says.

He acknowledges a basic insurance policy for the farm is pricey, and there’s no escaping the expense.

However, additional coverage beyond the basic policy is often available at a more palatable rate. Sometimes referred to as an umbrella policy, it provides additional protection that could literally save the farm.

“It often adds $5 million, $10 million of protection on top of your basic policy and at a discounted rate, but insurance agents often don’t bring it up because they know the odds of you buying it are slim,” Whitford says.

Talk, Listen, Act

As part of your annual meeting with your insurance agent, don’t hold back, Whitford tells the farmers in the room.

“Get your agent’s best advice, discuss all of the possible insurance options, then make the best decisions for you and your farm regarding coverage and policy limits,” he says.

While most farmers believe insurance is important, few read their policies. It’s true that an insurance policy is tedious reading, but making an effort to understand what is (and what is not) covered is important.

“After you suffer a loss, it will be too late to make any changes,” Whitford says. “Even if you don’t personally read your policy, at least develop a list of questions you want your insurance agent or attorney to answer.”

More Information Available

Fred Whitford is the author of more than 300 publications. Two of his recent ones are:

The Aftermath of a Farm Truck Crash: Lawsuits, Settlements, and Court Proceedings

Farm Truck Accidents: Considering Your Liability Management Options

Minority Farmers Sue Over Repeal of the Debt Relief Program

Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:28:28 GMT

Four minority farmers filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims over repeal via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of the minority debt relief effort for USDA borrowers previously held up in court by suits filed by white farmers who alleged discrimination since the effort was based on race, not need.

The Virginia farmers filing the suit allege repeal of the debt relief effort is a breach of contract by the government, arguing some farmers made financial plans based on the expectation of getting debt relief.

Promised Debt Relief

Reuters reported that around 14,000 farmers of color received letters from USDA in 2021 that promised debt relief of around $2.4 billion.

The initial race-based debt relief effort was contained in the American Rescue Plan but did not proceed due to court challenges. The IRA repealed that debt forgiveness effort and replaced it with one based on need.

The climate, health, and tax law earmarked $3.1 billion for “farm loan immediate relief for borrowers with at-risk agricultural operations” and $2.2 billion, to be administered by entities outside USDA, for payments of up to $500,000 each to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who had experienced discrimination in the past in USDA loan programs.

Industry Responds

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, likened the situation to the loss of assistance to Black farmers after the Civil War.

“The U.S. government must honor its commitment to us and the thousands of Black, Native American, and other farmers of color who are being forced into bankruptcy and foreclosures,” said John Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Association and one of the “class representatives” in the suit.

More on the IRA:

Will the IRA’s Biofuel Provisions Ease Pump Prices? Sen. Ernst Isn’t Convinced
What’s Ag’s Stake in the Senate-Passed Inflation Reduction Act?
IRA 2022 - What It Means For Farmers

Nelson To Serve Life in Prison for Diemel Murders

Mon, 03 Oct 2022 17:02:38 GMT

A northwest Missouri man will serve two consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole after he pleaded guilty Friday to the 2019 murders of two Shawano County, Wisconsin, brothers.

Garland Nelson, 28, Braymer, MO, admitted to shooting Nicholas Diemel, 35, and Justin Diemel, 24, burning their bodies and hiding their remains, according to the Caldwell County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

In exchange for his plea, charges of abandonment of a corpse, tampering with physical evidence, armed criminal action and tampering with a motor vehicle were dropped, the St. Joseph News-Press reported. One of Nelson’s defense attorneys said two years ago the state planned to seek the death penalty if his client was convicted of the killings.

“We are glad this matter has now been resolved. We are now assured that the person responsible for this heinous crime will never be out of prison,” Caldwell County Prosecuting Attorney Brady Kopek, who represented the state of Missouri in the case, said in a statement.

Prosecutors said Nelson had entered a business arrangement with Diemel Livestock of which Nick and Justin were principals. Nelson agreed to feed and pasture cattle and sell them on the Missouri farm owned by his mother. Nelson agreed to send the proceeds to Diemel’s Livestock.

The Diemels shipped several loads of cattle to Nelson between November 2018 and April 2019, and he allegedly sold, traded or killed the cattle without sending payment to the Diemel brothers. Prosecutors said Nelson “continued to fraudulently bill the Diemels for feed and yardage for cattle that had been sold, traded or had died.”

The indictment said Nelson “did not properly care for cattle due to incompetence, neglect, or maltreatment. Cattle entrusted to Nelson had high death rates dues to underfeeding, neglect, and/or maltreatment. Nelson fed cattle inadequately and poorly,” reads a statement from the prosecutor’s office. “For example, he dropped hay bales in a pasture for calves but did not remove the plastic covering so that calves ate the plastic and died. In another example, in December 2018, Nelson was entrusted with feeding and caring for 131 calves he co-owned with a Kansas farmer. On May 23, 2019, Nelson dropped off 35 calves at the co-owner’s farm in Kansas, apparently all that survived of the 131. Of the surviving 35 calves, many were emaciated and had ringworm. Some calves had their ears torn as though identifying ear tags had been removed.”

Nick Diemel continued to press Nelson for payment and sent no more cattle to him. The indictment states Nelson sent the Diemels a $215,936 bad check. His account had a balance of 21 cents at the time. Prosecutors say the check had been intentionally torn so it could not be cashed.

In an attempt to collect on the debt, the Diemel brothers traveled to Nelson’s farm near Braymer, Missouri, on July 21,2019. They were never seen again. When the brothers missed their flight back to Wisconsin their family reported them missing.

Prosecutors said Nelson shot the brothers and drove their pickup truck off of his farm. He told authorities he put the men’s bodies in 55-gallon barrels and burned them. Nelson told investigators he dumped the remains on a manure pile and hid the barrels on the property, about 70 miles northeast of Kansas City, Missouri.

The remains were later found in Missouri and in a livestock trailer in Lincoln County, Nebraska, that had been purchased in Missouri.

In 2020, the families of the victims reached a $2 million settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Nelson, his mother, Tomme Feil, and the family’s cattle business, J4S Enterprises.

At the time of the brothers’ deaths, Nelson was on parole after serving 17 months in federal prison for an October 2016 conviction for cattle and insurance fraud. Prosecutors said he sold more than 600 head of cattle that did not belong to him, causing more than $262,000 in losses.