Horne v. Department Of Agriculture

135 S.Ct. 2419 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate “marketing orders” to help maintain stable markets for particular agricultural products. The marketing order for raisins requires growers in certain years to give a percentage of their crop to the Government, free of charge. The Raisin Administrative Committee, a Government entity composed largely of growers and others in the raisin business is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Raisin Committee acquires title to the reserve raisins that have been set aside and decides how to dispose of them in its discretion. It sells them in non-competitive markets, for example to exporters, federal agencies, or foreign governments; donates them to charitable causes; releases them to growers who agree to reduce their raisin production; or disposes of them by “any other means” consistent with the purposes of the raisin program. Raisin growers retain an interest in any net proceeds from sales the Raisin Committee makes, after deductions for the export subsidies and the Committee’s administrative expenses. In 2002, P refused to set aside any raisins. The Government then assessed a fine equal to the market value of the missing raisins-some $480,000-as well as an additional civil penalty of just over $200,000 for disobeying the order to turn them over. P fought the fines by arguing that the reserve requirement was an unconstitutional taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment. Eventually, the case made its way back for a decision, and the Ninth Circuit considered whether that requirement was a physical appropriation of property, giving rise to a per se taking, or a restriction on a raisin grower’s use of his property, properly analyzed under the more flexible and forgiving standard for a regulatory taking. The court rejected a per se taking in that the Takings Clause affords less protection to personal than to real property. The court viewed the reserve requirement as a use restriction, similar to a government condition on the grant of a land use permit. It reasoned that the Government imposed a condition (the reserve requirement) in exchange for a Government benefit (an orderly raisin market). The court found that the reserve requirement was a proportional response to the Government’s interest in ensuring an orderly raisin market and not a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.