Term: 2012
Docket: 12-123
Marvin D. Horne, Et Al., Petitioners v. Department Of Agriculture
- Pro
12-123 HORNE V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DECISION BELOW: 673 F.3d 1071 CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under federal regulations, a "handler" of raisins must turn over a percentage of his raisin crop to a federal entity in order to sell the remainder on the open market -often in exchange for no payment or payment below the cost of raisin production. For the 2003 and 2004 crop years, the federal government brought an enforcement action against petitioners, seeking to recover the monetary value of raisins they did not turn over to the government. Petitioners raised the Takings Clause as a defense. The Ninth Circuit initially rejected petitioners' takings defense on the merits, but on Petition for Rehearing vacated its prior merits opinion and replaced it with an opinion dismissing the takings defense for lack of jurisdiction. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decisions of five other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a "direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government," Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 521 (1998) (plurality), but instead must pay the money and then bring a separate, later claim requesting reimbursement of the money under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to a decision of the Federal Circuit, that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioners' takings defense, even though petitioners, as "handlers" of raisins under the Raisin Marketing Order, are statutorily required under 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15) to exhaust all claims and defenses in administrative proceedings before the United States Department of Agriculture, with exclusive jurisdiction for review in federal district court. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-15270
The case Marvin D. Horne, et al., v. Department of Agriculture was a dispute over the government's right to regulate raisin production under a New Deal-era law designed to stabilize prices and prevent waste in times of surplus. The petitioners, California raisin farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, challenged the constitutionality of this law after they were fined for refusing to set aside a portion of their crop for the federal government without compensation as required by an Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act order. They argued that this constituted an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. In 2012, however, their case was dismissed by lower courts on jurisdictional grounds stating it should have been heard first by the Court of Federal Claims instead of district court where it originated from.
In the dissenting opinion for Marvin D. Horne, et al., v. Department of Agriculture, 2012 case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the government's action did not constitute a physical taking of property but rather a condition on the use of that property. She contended that under established precedent, such conditions do not amount to takings unless they have no nexus to a legitimate governmental interest or are disproportionate to that interest. In this case, she believed there was both a clear nexus and proportionality between the reserve requirement and its goal: stabilizing raisin prices while ensuring an adequate supply in high-demand years. Therefore, she concluded it should be viewed as permissible regulation rather than unconstitutional taking without just compensation.
