For Immediate Release: October 15, 2026
Contact: R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard
Phone: 406-252-2516; r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com
Please find below R-CALF USA’s weekly opinion/commentary that explains R-CALF USA’s arguments against the USDA’s EID eartag mandate that will soon be decided by the court. It is in three formats: written, audio and video. Anyone is welcome to use it for broadcasting or reporting.
Back in Court: The Fight to Stop Mandatory EID
Commentary by Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA
Our lawsuit challenging USDA’s mandatory electronic identification eartag rule is moving forward again. The parties asked the court to pause proceedings while exploring settlement, but no agreement was reached. The government’s reply brief is due October 16, and a hearing is scheduled for November 18 in Rapid City, South Dakota.
R-CALF USA, the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, and ranchers Kenny and Roxie Fox and Rick and Theresa Fox are represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Our case challenges a rule requiring electronic eartags for certain cattle and bison moving across state lines, subject to exceptions. Our central argument is that USDA imposed an expensive mandate without adequately explaining how its requirements solve the problems the agency identified.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency decisions must be reasonable, supported, and internally consistent. We argue this rule fails that test.
First, consider the contradiction at its core. USDA says handwritten identification numbers and inaccessible paper records can delay disease tracing. Yet its rule still allows ranchers and veterinarians to read electronic tags visually, write the numbers by hand, and maintain paper records. Electronic readers and electronic recordkeeping are optional.
So a rancher can be required to buy a more expensive tag while using it exactly like the cheaper tag it replaced. We argue USDA has preserved the very problems it says justify this mandate.
Our reply brief makes this practical point: scanning an animal later cannot correct a number that was copied incorrectly when that animal was vaccinated or sold. Nor does a scanner automatically recover missing paper records.
Second, the costs are real, while the claimed benefits remain inadequately supported. USDA estimated additional annual tagging costs of $26.1 million without federal funding. Kenny and Roxie Fox reported paying $3.50 per electronic tag, more than USDA’s highest estimated average price.
Government promises of free tags cannot erase those actual expenses or guarantee future congressional funding. We also challenge USDA’s assumptions about outbreak probabilities, potential losses, and the savings supposedly attributable to electronic tags. Our argument is that speculative benefits do not adequately justify mandatory costs.
Third, USDA failed to adequately explain its reversal on visual tags. The earlier system allowed them, and tracing exercises showed substantial improvements before this mandate. We cite evidence that average tracing times had already fallen below a previously identified benchmark of 48 hours.
That does not mean every trace succeeds. It means USDA needed to explain why the existing system’s performance justified eliminating this lower cost option.
We also question why USDA considers a rule reaching roughly eleven to twelve percent of the national cattle and bison inventory sufficient when its earlier statements suggested effective traceability required much broader participation.
Fourth, the rule treats identification methods inconsistently. USDA continues allowing brands under certain conditions despite acknowledging their limitations for tracing individual animals. We argue the agency never adequately explained why those exceptions remain while newly applied visual-only tags lose their status as official eartags.
Fifth, USDA overlooked an obvious alternative: readability standards for visual tags. If numbers are difficult to read, improving their legibility could address transcription errors while preserving a less expensive option. USDA imposed readability standards on electronic tags but failed to properly consider comparable standards for visual tags.
Our filings also question whether USDA adequately explained its data collection practices and fully addressed the resulting privacy and data security concerns.
Finally, we argue the government cannot repair deficient reasoning by introducing new explanations during litigation. The agency must defend the reasons it actually gave when adopting the rule. We also contend the administrative record does not adequately substantiate the required determination that this restriction on interstate movement is necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of livestock disease.
We are asking the court to set aside the rule and restore producers’ ability to choose visual or electronic eartags. That relief would preserve identification requirements while restoring the flexibility producers had before this mandate.
These are our arguments, and the court must decide them. We will continue pressing for a decision that holds USDA accountable to the law and protects independent producers from an inadequately justified federal mandate.
###
R-CALF USA’s weekly opinion/commentary educates and informs both consumers and producers about timely issues important to the U.S. cattle and sheep industries and rural America.
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) is the largest producer-only trade association in the United States. It is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle and sheep industries. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or call 406-252-2516.