> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Government Says SCOTUS Shouldn’t Hear Decosters’ Appeal
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/government-says-scotus-shouldnt-hear-decosters-appeal/
- Published: 2017-04-19T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T22:18:39.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: FDA Policy/General, #legacy-id-D5138482

The federal government says there are several reasons why the Supreme Court should not hear an appeal filed by **Jack** and **Peter Decoster** of their three-month sentence under the *Park* (responsible corporate officer) doctrine. Attorney **Jennifer Thomas** (Hyman, Phelps & McNamara) [writes in her firm’s *FDA Law Blog*](http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda%5Flaw%5Fblog%5Fhyman%5Fphelps/2017/04/so-about-that-guilty-plea-the-government-responds-to-the-decosters-petition-for-cert.html?ref=fdaweb.com) that the Decosters are appealing an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision agreeing with the sentence imposed by an Iowa federal court.

The Decosters are the former owner and CEO of Quality Egg who pleaded guilty to responsible corporate officer violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. At the time, the government acknowledged that it lacked evidence of either Decoster’s knowledge of or participation in the violations. But the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing that the Decosters had acted negligently.

Thomas writes that in asking the high court not to hear the appeal, the government called attention to **(1)** the Decosters’ unqualified guilty pleas to the misdemeanor offenses and **(2)** their agreement to be sentenced based on facts by the district court judge based on a preponderance of the evidence. The government says the three-month sentence would have been justified based on the blameworthiness inherent in a responsible corporate officer conviction under the FFDCA, regardless of any fact-finding by the district court.

In response to the Decosters’ argument that the *Park* doctrine should be invalidated in its entirety, the government says that their guilty pleas and failure to contest the statutory basis for their convictions before the district and circuit courts should preclude Supreme Court consideration of that issue.

Washington Legal Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have already filed *amicus* briefs supporting the Decosters, Thomas says, and additional supportive briefs are expected.