M&T Farms v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, et al.

Auer deference allows courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous regulations, but only after exhausting traditional interpretive tools to confirm genuine ambiguity. In M&T Farms v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 103 F.4th 724, 726 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit applied Auer deference, finding ambiguity in the term “farming activity” under the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) Policy, and therefore accepted the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation’s (FCIC) “reasonable” interpretation of the term. The WFRP Policy defines a “farm operation” as all “farming activities” reported under a single taxpayer identification number, encompassing diverse revenue sources if reported on a single tax return. (App.89a). Petitioner contends that under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the lower courts were required to exhaust interpretive tools to determine the best meaning of “farming activity” under the policy’s controlling definitions, which would have supported M&T’s claim for coverage (144 S. Ct. 2244, 2250-51 (2024)).). The Question Presented Is: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding Auer deference to the FCIC’s retroactive interpretation of coverage under the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection Pilot Policy, where the FCIC’s new definition effectively terminates insurance coverage for farmers across the United States; and whether such a decision conflicts with Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), and the recent decision of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024).