In a significant ruling that has implications for agricultural policy and wetlands conservation, a federal court in the Northern District of Iowa has upheld the constitutionality of the wetlands conservation program commonly known as “Swampbuster.” The decision, issued on May 29, 2025, comes after a legal challenge from a landowner who argued that the program was an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause and an unconstitutional taking of private land.
Swampbuster, a provision of the Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation program, aims to conserve wetlands by reducing the incentive to convert these areas into agricultural land. The program, implemented by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), designates certain areas as wetlands and makes agricultural producers ineligible for specific USDA benefits if they convert these wetlands into farmland.
The lawsuit, CTM Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, was filed by an Iowa landowner in April 2024. The plaintiff, a limited liability company owning 1,075 acres of farmland, including nine acres designated as a wetland, argued that the wetland determination prevented them from using the land for agricultural production, resulting in lost profits. The plaintiff contended that Swampbuster was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and amounted to an unconstitutional “Takings” under the Fifth Amendment.
The USDA, however, defended Swampbuster as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, citing previous court rulings that supported this view. The agency also argued that Swampbuster does not constitute a taking because it does not independently take anything from or require anything of the landowner.
The court’s decision hinged on two primary questions: whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the case and whether Swampbuster was constitutional. On both counts, the court ruled in favor of the USDA.
To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a real injury, a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the injury, and the court’s ability to provide an adequate remedy. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing because there was no final agency action to challenge. The plaintiff had not formally requested a review of the wetland determination, and the court deemed the plaintiff’s alleged injury as speculative rather than actual or imminent.
Despite resolving the case on standing, the court also addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s constitutional challenges. The court rejected the argument that Swampbuster violated the Commerce Clause, asserting that the program is based on Congress’s spending power rather than the Commerce Clause. The court also dismissed the Takings argument, stating that Swampbuster does not independently take anything from or require anything of the landowner.
This ruling reinforces the legal foundation of Swampbuster and similar conservation programs, providing clarity for agricultural producers and landowners. It underscores the importance of wetlands conservation in maintaining ecological balance and the role of federal programs in achieving these goals. The decision also sets a precedent for future challenges to agricultural and environmental regulations, emphasizing the need for concrete injuries and final agency actions to establish standing. As the agricultural industry continues to evolve, this ruling will likely influence how landowners and policymakers approach wetlands conservation and the broader implications of federal regulations on private property.