of law. See id.; Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 119 F.3d 816, 832 (10th Cir.1997) (recognizing the rule that an agency “may establish binding policy either through rule-making procedures or through adjudications that create binding precedents” (quotation omitted)), rev’d on other grounds, Amoco Prod. Co. v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 119 S.Ct. 1719, 144 L.Ed.2d 22 (1999). Here, however, the Secretary has not promulgated a regulation applicable to the practices the Growers allege violate § 202(a), and the USDA has no authority to adjudicate alleged violations of § 202 by live poultry dealers. See London, 410 F.3d at 1304 (citing administrative complaint procedures under 7 U.S.C. § 193(a)); Jackson v. Swift Eckrich, Inc., 53 F.3d 1452, 1456-57 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we afford the USDA’s position as
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that the only means of enforcing  202 against live poultry dealers is to file suit in federal district court under  308 7 usc  209a holding that the plain language of 42 usc  4654c precludes the court from including in its award to the plaintiffs any reimbursement for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs before they decided to file suit in the court of claims under 28 usc  1491 holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office holding that in order for a plaintiff to file suit against the government on a contract claim in the court of federal claims a plaintiff must have either direct privity or thirdparty beneficiary status