Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Last updated

Horne v. Department of Agriculture I
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 20, 2013
Decided June 10, 2013
Full case nameMarvin D. Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture
Docket no. 12-123
Citations569 U.S. 513 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 2053; 186 L. Ed. 2d 69; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4357; 81 U.S.L.W. 4367 (2013)
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorSummary judgment for defendants, No. 1:08-cv-01549, 2009 WL 4895362, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115464 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009), aff'd, lack of jurisdiction found, 673 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2012).
SubsequentNo takings, 750 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2014), rev'd, 576 U.S. 351 (2015) ("Horne II")
Holding
The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide petitioners' takings claim
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityThomas, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V., Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, Tucker Act
Horne v. Department of Agriculture II
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 22, 2015
Decided June 22, 2015
Full case nameMarvin D. Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture
Docket no. 14-275
Citations576 U.S. 351 ( more )
135 S. Ct. 2419; 192 L. Ed. 2d 388; 83 U.S.L.W. 4503
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Holding
The Fifth Amendment requires that the Government pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan (Parts I and II)
ConcurrenceThomas
Concur/dissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Kagan
DissentSotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V., Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, Tucker Act

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ("Horne I"); 576 U.S. 351 (2015) ("Horne II"), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market. In Horne I the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause. [1] In Horne II the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause. [2]

Contents

Background

National Raisin Reserve

During the Great Depression raisin prices dropped over 80%. [3] Congress reacted by passing the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 ("AMAA"). The AMAA allowed United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") to issue marketing orders and agreements holding a portion of harvests in reserve so as to inflate prices. [3] Authority to determine the annual portion of "reserve tonnage" raisins that were held by the government and the "free tonnage" raisins that owners may sell on the open market was delegated by USDA to the Raisin Administrative Committee, a body composed of raisin industry representatives appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. [4] The raisin reserve regularly collected as much half of raisins grown, with the raisin reserve being over 30% of total raisins for five out of the ten years between 1997 and 2006. [5] The Raisin Committee then sold the reserve raisins on noncompetitive markets for a variety of public purposes such as increasing exports, rewarding favored foreign governments, feeding schoolchildren, or even giving the reserve raisins back to growers if they agreed to cut back their production. [6] Sale proceeds that remained after funding Raisin Committee operations and subsidizing exporters were returned to the owner of the raisins. That amount was sometimes zero. [5]

Initial dispute with Raisin Committee

Marvin Horne, a raisin grower operating outside Kerman, California, [7] did not want to give any of his raisins to the Raisin Committee. [8] Because the raisin reserve was not collected from growers but from the raisin handlers who sell raisins directly to buyers, Horne restructured his farm to act as both a grower and a handler. [9] He then contended that the reserve requirement no longer applied to him. However, the Raisin Committee disagreed. When the Committee sent its trucks to collect Horne's raisins Horne refused to allow them onto his property. The Committee then fined Horne $680,000, the value of the raisins plus a penalty. [10] Horne then filed suit in federal court, complaining that the raisin reserve violated the U.S. Constitution. Unconvinced, Fresno federal district Judge Lawrence Joseph O'Neill granted summary judgment to the United States Department of Agriculture. [11] Horne appealed, but a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the district court did not even have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional claim. [12] Horne petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. Former Tenth Circuit Judge and Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell argued before the Court on behalf of Horne. [13]

Horne I

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to consider Horne's case. The Court first ruled that Horne's attempt to avoid the AMAA by restructuring his farm as a combined raisin grower and handler was ineffective. However, because the law applies to Horne, his challenge to the raisin reserve was ripe. [14] Justice Thomas also concluded that the Tucker Act did not require Horne to sue in the Court of Federal Claims because the AMAA has a comprehensive regulatory scheme. [15] Consequently, Justice Thomas held the case should be remanded to the Ninth Circuit to consider the merits of Horne's takings claim.

Horne II

On remand the same panel of the Ninth Circuit found that there had been no taking because the Takings Clause protects personal property, like raisins, less than real property. [16] Again, Horne petitioned for a writ of certiorari and, again, the petition was granted. Professor McConnell returned to argue the case for Horne but Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler now argued for the Government.

Opinion of the Court

Writing for a majority of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Fifth Amendment requires the government and its agencies to pay just compensation when they take personal property from citizens. Chief Justice Roberts began his analysis by tracing the history of personal property from the protection of farmers’ corn in the 1215 Magna Carta, [17] to the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, [18] to a 1778 editorial by John Jay. [19] Chief Justice Roberts concluded that personal property has not been given any less protection than real property for at least 800 years and that the physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking. Applying this rule, Chief Justice Roberts held that the raisin reserve requirement constituted a physical taking because the government would physically seize the growers’ raisins. Chief Justice Roberts also held the payout from raisin reserve sales do not change the takings analysis because courts only consider potential remaining uses of property when evaluating regulatory takings, not physical takings.

Chief Justice Roberts rejected Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s contention that the raisin reserve requirement is a mere condition on the privilege of being in the raisin market. Rather, Chief Justice Roberts held that selling produce "is not a special government benefit that the Government may hold hostage." To support this assertion, Chief Justice Roberts cited a footnote in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. , which theorized forfeiting rent payments would not be a mere condition on the privilege of being a landlord. Chief Justice Roberts also refused to apply the Tucker Act because that question was already resolved in Horne I. Finally, Chief Justice Roberts refused to remand the case back to a lower court to decide the amount of compensation to which Horne would be entitled because just compensation for a physical takings is the market value of the property taken, and the Government had already calculated that value when it fined Horne.

Concurring opinion of Justice Thomas

Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted that he still thinks Kelo v. New London was wrongly decided and that the reserve raisins probably were not validly taken for a public use. He argued that remand, therefore, would be "fruitless" because just compensation is only calculated for valid takings.

Concurrence and dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer

Justice Stephen Breyer, along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan, joined the portion of the majority's opinion that held the raisin reserve requirement constituted a physical taking. However, Justice Breyer argued the case should be remanded to calculate just compensation. Justice Breyer argued that the value of the fine may not be an appropriate method of valuing the raisins, because there can be no takings if the benefit Horne received from the price inflation was more valuable than the cost of the seized raisins. Furthermore, Justice Breyer argued that if Horne received a net benefit from the marketing order, then he could not be excused from paying the fine for violating the order.

Dissenting opinion of Justice Sotomayor

Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the seizure of Horne's raisins did not constitute a taking. The ad hoc inquiry that governs regulatory takings, she argued, is only subject to stricter review in the "three narrow categories" of zoning permit exactions, deprivations of all economically beneficial use, and permanent physical occupations. Justice Sotomayor claimed there can only be a physical takings if the owner is absolutely dispossessed of all of her ownership interest. Requiring raisin growers to physically give their crop to the government reserve may be "downright silly", but she argued it is not absolute dispossession because the government may later decide to payout some of the reserve raisin sales to the growers. Justice Sotomayor also contended the raisin reserve is not a taking because selling raisins is a government benefit. While she "could not agree more" with the Court that raisins "are not dangerous pesticides; they are a healthy snack", she still believes that even without safety concerns, the privilege of selling raisins are a government benefit subject to government conditions.

See also

Related Research Articles

Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is the plaintiff and not the defendant.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6–3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The United States government claimed a public right to fly over Thomas Lee Causby's farm located near an airport in Greensboro, North Carolina. Causby argued that the government's low-altitude flights entitled him to just compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Marketing orders and agreements in United States agricultural policy allow producers to promote orderly marketing through collectively influencing the supply, demand, or price of a particular commodity. Research and promotion can be financed with pooled funds.

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2012 term, which began October 1, 2012 and concluded October 6, 2013.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.

The National Raisin Reserve was a raisin reserve of the United States. It was created after World War II by the government in order to control raisin prices. The reserve was run by the Raisin Administrative Committee. It was enforced by means of a "marketing order". In 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the confiscation of a portion of a farmer's crops without market price compensation was unconstitutional and ended the reserve.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2013 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2017 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2017 term, which began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down seven per curiam opinions during its 2018 term, which began October 1, 2018, and concluded October 6, 2019.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.

United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution as it related to patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "primary officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.

References

  1. ↑ Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ("Horne I").
  2. ↑ Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, No. 14-275 , 576 U.S. 351, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) ("Horne II").
  3. 1 2 Horne v. USDA, 673 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Daniel Bensing, The Promulgation and Implementation of Federal Marketing Orders Regulating Fruit and Vegetable Crops Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 , 5 San Joaquin Agric. L. Rev. 3 (1995).).
  4. ↑ "Court to rule on raisin program". SCOTUSblog. November 20, 2012.
  5. 1 2 "Raisin Administrative Committee : Analysis Report" (PDF). Raisins.org. August 1, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 1, 2015. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
  6. ↑ "How the Supreme Court just quietly rolled back a key element of the New Deal". theweek.com. June 24, 2015.
  7. ↑ Bravin, Jess (June 23, 2015). "Supreme Court Strikes Down New Deal-Era Raisin Price-Support Program". WSJ.
  8. ↑ "Planet Money Episode 478: The Raisin Outlaw". NPR.org. June 24, 2015.
  9. ↑ "Prepare for Life After the National Raisin Reserve". BloombergView.com. June 22, 2015.
  10. ↑ "No More Sour Grapes: Magna Carta Helps Stop Federal Raids on Raisin Crops". The Economist. June 27, 2015.
  11. ↑ Horne v. USDA, No. 1:08-cv-01549, 2009 WL 4895362, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115464 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009).
  12. ↑ Horne, 673 F.3d at 1080.
  13. ↑ "Michael W. McConnell - Stanford Law School". stanford.edu.
  14. ↑ Horne I, 569 U.S. at 525 (distinguishing Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City , 473 U.S. 172 (1985)).
  15. ↑ Horne I, 569 U.S. at 522 (citing Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel , 524 U.S. 498 (1998)).
  16. ↑ Horne v. USDA, 750F.3d1128 ( 9th Cir. 2014).
  17. ↑ Horne II, 135 S. Ct. at 2426 (citing Cl. 28 (1215), in W. McKechnie, Magna Carta, A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John 329 (2d ed. 1914)).
  18. ↑ Horne II, 135 S. Ct. at 2426 (citing Massachusetts Body of Liberties ¶8, in R. Perry, Sources of Our Liberties 149 (1978)).
  19. ↑ Horne II, 135 S. Ct. at 2426 (citing A Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York (1778), in John Jay, The Making of a Revolutionary 461–463 (R. Morris ed. 1975)).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.