Horne v. Department of Agriculture
Headline: Raisin reserve requirement struck down; Court rules Government must pay just compensation when it forces growers to set aside crop for official use, affecting raisin growers and federal marketing programs
Holding: The Court held that requiring raisin growers to surrender part of their crop for the Government’s use is a physical taking that requires just compensation, and growers may defend against fines without first suing for damages.
- Requires compensation when government seizes farmers’ crops for official use.
- Allows growers to challenge fines based on takings without paying first.
- May force changes to federal agricultural marketing set‑aside programs.
Summary
Background
Marvin and Laura Horne and their family are California raisin growers and handlers covered by a federal raisin marketing order. The order required growers in some years to set aside a percentage of their crop for the Government’s account—47 percent in 2002–2003 and 30 percent in 2003–2004. The Raisin Administrative Committee took title to the reserve raisins, sold or donated them, and credited any net proceeds back to growers after expenses. The Hornes refused to set aside any raisins. The Government fined them about $483,843.53 as the market value of the missing raisins and assessed an additional civil penalty of just over $200,000. The Hornes sued under the Fifth Amendment, and the Ninth Circuit ruled there was no per se taking because growers retained an interest in any net proceeds and compared the rule to land‑use permit conditions.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court addressed three questions and answered them together: the Takings Clause protects personal as well as real property; a formal demand that growers turn over specific raisins is a physical taking because title and control pass to the Committee; and retaining a contingent claim to possible net proceeds does not avoid the taking. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that being allowed to sell raisins in interstate commerce is a voluntary benefit that can be conditioned on surrendering property. Because the Hornes also acted as handlers and had full economic interest in the raisins at issue, they may raise a takings‑based defense to the fine without first paying and suing under a separate statute. The Court said just compensation is normally the market value at the time of the taking and noted the Government already calculated that amount when it assessed the fine.
Real world impact
The ruling requires payment when the Government physically seizes farm goods and lets growers challenge fines without paying first.
Dissents or concurrances
One Justice would remand to measure compensation; another dissented, saying no per se taking occurred.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?