Term: 2014
Docket: 14-275
Horne v. Department Of Agriculture
- Pro
14-275 HORNE V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE DECISION BELOW: 750 F.3d 1128 CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: The questions presented by this petition are: 1. Whether the government's "categorical duty" under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it "physically takes possession of an interest in property," Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511, 518 (2012), applies only to real property and not to personal property. 2. Whether the government may avoid the categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical taking of property by reserving to the property owner a contingent interest in a portion of the value of the property, set at the government's discretion. 3. Whether a governmental mandate to relinquish specific, identifiable property as a "condition" on permission to engage in commerce effects a per se taking. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-15270
The case of Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 2014, revolved around a dispute between California raisin farmers and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA had enforced a New Deal-era regulation that required farmers to set aside a certain percentage of their crop for government use in order to stabilize market prices. Marvin and Laura Horne argued this constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Initially, lower courts ruled against them stating they should pay fines first before challenging the law's constitutionality. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was decided in favor of Hornes by ruling that personal property is protected under the Takings Clause as much as real estate property is; hence requiring payment for any such 'taking'. This decision effectively ended USDA's ability to fine farmers who did not comply with setting aside portions of their crops.
In the dissenting opinion for Horne v. Department of Agriculture, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the government's requirement for raisin farmers to set aside a portion of their crop did not constitute a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment. She contended that this was merely a regulatory action aimed at stabilizing raisin prices and preventing market glut, which falls within the government’s power to regulate commerce. The majority's decision, she believed, could potentially undermine many other similar agricultural programs designed to support stable markets and protect farmers from price volatility. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "physical" takings as including personal property like crops; instead arguing such an understanding should be limited only to real estate or land-based properties.
