Horne v. Department of Agriculture

2015-06-22

Headline: Court holds government cannot force raisin growers to surrender part of their crop without paying, reversing lower court and freeing growers from fines while calling the practice a per se taking.

Holding: The Court held that the Government’s requirement that raisin growers surrender a percentage of their crop is a physical taking that requires just compensation and reversed the Ninth Circuit, relieving the Hornes of assessed fines.

Real World Impact:

Treats forced crop-set as a physical taking requiring just compensation.
Allows growers to raise a takings defense to fines without first paying.
Affects other commodity reserve programs that set aside farmers' crops.

Topics: farmers' property rights, government seizure of crops, payment for seized crops, agricultural market rules

Summary

Background

Marvin and Laura Horne and their family are raisin growers who also handle raisins. Under a federal raisin marketing order, growers must set aside a percentage of their crop in some years for the Government’s account; in the years at issue the requirement was 47% and 30%. The Hornes refused to set aside any raisins. The Government summoned trucks, assessed a fine equal to the market value of the missing raisins (about $483,843.53) and an additional civil penalty of just over $200,000, and sought to collect it. The Hornes argued this reserve requirement was an unconstitutional taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Government’s demand that growers physically turn over a percentage of their crop is a per se physical taking that requires payment. Relying on historical practice and precedents about physical appropriation, the Court held that taking actual raisins and title to them is a physical taking of personal property. The Court rejected the Government’s claim that growers keep a contingent interest in any net proceeds and so suffer no taking. It concluded that conditional or speculative future payments do not avoid the Government’s categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical appropriation, and reversed the Ninth Circuit.

Real world impact

The decision relieves the Hornes of the fines and penalty and confirms that when the Government physically seizes crops it must provide just compensation. Growers subject to similar reserve or seizure programs can use a takings defense to challenge fines or demands. The ruling does not fully resolve how much compensation is owed; the Court used the Government’s own valuation to avoid remanding payment calculations here.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer (joined by two others) would have remanded to let lower courts decide whether the marketing program’s benefits offset the taking. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the Hornes retained meaningful rights and therefore no per se taking occurred. Justice Thomas concurred and raised public-use concerns.