Oklahoma Farm Bureau, along with a coalition of fellow agricultural organizations, individual poultry producers and numerous Oklahoma state legislators have filed a motion seeking leave to file a friend-of-the-court brief asking for a stay of the judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in the decades-long State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., lawsuit.
The motion and corresponding amicus curiae brief were filed Monday, Feb. 16, in the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and were signed by Oklahoma Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma Pork Council, the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association, seven eastern Oklahoma poultry growers and 30 Oklahoma legislators.
The brief asks the appeals court to place a stay, or hold, on the judgment of the U.S. District Court’s Dec. 19, 2025, ruling, which included fines for poultry companies operating in the Illinois River Watershed and requires poultry growers to relinquish control of their poultry litter until a judicially immune Special Master is appointed to oversee remediation efforts.
“The U.S. District Court’s judgment in the state’s poultry case unfairly penalizes family poultry farmers who followed all the applicable state of Oklahoma laws and regulations they were asked to comply with,” said OKFB President Stacy Simunek. “This stay will allow these farmers to continue to follow their state-approved nutrient management plans while the state secures settlements with the poultry companies that will need to be approved by the district court.”
The brief asks that poultry producers in the Illinois River Watershed be allowed to continue to follow their state-approved nutrient management plans to provide near-term certainty until either the case is fully settled or potential appeals are resolved.
The judgment’s requirement that poultry companies be responsible for removing litter from the watershed combined with a reduction in allowable litter application would not only reduce the application of the natural fertilizer and increase dependence on commercial fertilizer, but it would also take away certain poultry growers’ ability to sell the fertilizer, removing an economic driver from the region.
Oklahoma agriculture groups and producers have also called into question the judicially immune actions of the proposed Special Master, which the groups argue creates a regulatory bureaucracy outside of state laws and regulations.
The groups assert that even with three proposed settlements being reached between some of the poultry companies involved in the case and the State of Oklahoma, the court will need to review and take action on the agreements, creating uncertainty as poultry producers continue to wait for a path forward.
“Our state’s farmers are committed to caring for the environment and our shared natural resources,” Simunek said. “In the 20-plus years since the case was originally filed, poultry producers in the watershed have taken voluntary measures to improve water quality for their communities and fellow Oklahomans. Oklahoma agriculture wants to ensure that family agriculturalists are not unfairly penalized for not only doing what is asked of them, but also for implementing proactive environmental stewardship practices.”
