U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 26— AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— COMMODITY BENEFITS

7 U.S.C. § 608b

Marketing agreements; exemption from anti-trust laws; inspection requirements for handlers not subject to agreements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In order to effectuate the declared policy of this chapter, the Secretary of Agriculture shall have the power, after due notice and opportunity for hearing, to enter into marketing agreements with processors, producers, associations of producers, and others engaged in the handling of any agricultural commodity or product thereof, only with respect to such handling as is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or which directly burdens, obstructs, or affects, interstate or foreign commerce in such commodity or product thereof. The making of any such agreement shall not be held to be in violation of any of the antitrust laws of the United States, and any such agreement shall be deemed to be lawful: Provided, That no such agreement shall remain in force after the termination of this chapter.(b)(1) If an agreement with the Secretary is in effect with respect to peanuts pursuant to this section—(A) all peanuts handled by persons who have not entered into such an agreement with the Secretary shall be subject to inspection to the same extent and manner as is required by such agreement;(B) no such peanuts shall be sold or otherwise disposed of for human consumption if such peanuts fail to meet the quality requirements of such agreement; and(C) any assessment (except with respect to any assessment for the indemnification of losses on rejected peanuts) imposed under the agreement shall—(i) apply to peanut handlers (as defined by the Secretary) who have not entered into such an agreement with the Secretary in addition to those handlers who have entered into the agreement; and(ii) be paid to the Secretary.(2) Violation of this subsection by a person who has not entered into such an agreement shall result in the assessment by the Secretary of a penalty equal to 140 percent of the support price for quota peanuts multiplied by the quantity of peanuts sold or disposed of in violation of subsection (b)(1)(B), as determined under section 1445c–3 11 See References in Text note below. of this title, for the marketing year for the crop with respect to which such violation occurs.(May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, § 8b, formerly § 8(2), 48 Stat. 34; Apr. 7, 1934, ch. 103, § 7, 48 Stat. 528; renumbered and amended Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, § 4, 49 Stat. 753; June 3, 1937, ch. 296, § 1, 50 Stat. 246; June 30, 1947, ch. 166, title II, § 206(d), 61 Stat. 208; Pub. L. 101–220, § 4, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1878; Pub. L. 102–237, title I, § 115(1), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1840; Pub. L. 103–66, title I, § 1109(b), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 326.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 1445c–3 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), was repealed by Pub. L. 104–127, title I, § 171(b)(2)(E), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 938.

Codification

The provisions appearing in subsec. (a) of this section except the first sentence, were originally enacted as part of section 8(2) of act May 12, 1933, and formerly appeared as section 608(2) of this title.

Amendments

1993—Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 103–66 added subpar. (C).

1991—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 102–237 made technical amendment to reference to section 1445c–3 of this title involving corresponding provisions of original Act.

1989—Pub. L. 101–220 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1947—Act June 30, 1947, repealed provisions providing for loans from Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

1935—Act Aug. 24, 1935, designated subsection 2 of section 8 of act May 12, 1933, as section 8b and amended first sentence generally.

1934—Act Apr. 7, 1934, empowered Secretary of Agriculture to enter into marketing agreements with individual producers.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–220, § 4(c), Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1878, provided that: “The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall be effective with respect to the 1990 and subsequent crops of peanuts.”

Validity of Section Affirmed

Act June 3, 1937, affirmed and validated, and reenacted without change the provisions of this section. See note set out under section 601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1936–2010 · leading case: Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 12 P.3d 720 (Cal. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 12 P.3d 720 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 4× “2130 , citing 7 U.S.C. § 608b.) Incorrectly. What are exempted, impliedly if not expressly, are not marketing orders, but rather marketing agreements.”
In Re Title Ins. Antitrust Cases, 702 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ohio 2010). “Rather it focused on whether immunity existed under 7 U.S.C. § 608b for following agricultural marketing orders.”
Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Conn. 2003). “As the Court in Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation explained: In the Agricultural Adjustment Act (specifically, 7 U.S.C. § 608b), there is provided a limited form of antitrust immunity.”
Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn., Inc. v. United States, 362 U.S. 458 (1960). “20 Agricultural Adjustment Act, § 8b, as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 608b. United States v. Borden Co.”
Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. Giannini, 909 F.2d 332 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action on the basis of: (1) an antitrust exemption in the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 608b; and (2) approval of defendants’ activities by the Secretary.”
Alabama Power Co. v. Alabama Elec. Coop., Inc., 394 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1968). “The courts carefully have limited these expressly conferred immunities to the scope defined in each instance by Congress so as to avoid pro tanto repeal of the antitrust laws. Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act the Secretary of Agriculture may become a party to…”
United States v. Borden Co., 28 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. Ill. 1939). · cites it 2× “The making of any such agreement shall not be held to be in violation of any of the antitrust laws of the United States, and any such agreement shall be deemed to be lawful * * * ” 7 U.S.C.A. § 608b. Not only is the Secretary of Agriculture vested with power to enter into…”
Ezra T. Benson, Sec'y of Agric. v. Arthur Schofield, New England Milk Producers' Ass'n, a Massachusetts Corp. v. Arthur Schofield, 236 F.2d 719 (D.C. Cir. 1956). “7 U.S.C.A. § 608b. 8 . As defined in § 608c of the Act, which includes associations of producers.”
Chiglades Farm, Ltd. v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States of Am., 485 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1973). · cites it 2× “The Court held that the Marketing Order was both a proper exercise of the Secretary’s statutory authority and constitutional and that the antitrust laws had not been violated since 7 U.S.C.A. § 608b specifically provides that marketing agreements shall not be held violative of…”
United States v. David Buttrick Co., 91 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1937). “Section 8b confers power upon the Secretary of Agriculture, after notice and hearing, to enter into marketing agreements with those engaged in handling an agricultural commodity or one of its products, but “only with respect to such handling as is in the current of interstate or…”
Lehigh Valley Farmers v. Block, 640 F. Supp. 1497 (E.D. Pa. 1986). “API is also a federation of cooperatives, qualified under the Capper Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. § 608b, as is Pennmarva. Similarly, Farmers’ Cooperative Dairy is a handler, but it is also the representative of its member producers.”
United States v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers' Ass'n, 90 F. Supp. 681 (D.D.C. 1950). “The pertinent parts of the applicable provisions of the statute read as follows, 7 U.S.C.A. § 608b: “In order to effectuate the declared policy of this chapter, the Secretary of Agriculture shall have the power, after due notice and opportunity for hearing, to enter, into…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— 7 U.S.C. § 608b(a) — 2 cases
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 12 P.3d 720 (Cal. 2000). “2130 , citing 7 U.S.C. § 608b.) Incorrectly. What are exempted, impliedly if not expressly, are not marketing orders, but rather marketing agreements.”
United States v. Sunny Cove Citrus Ass'n, 854 F. Supp. 669 (E.D. Cal. 1994).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.