Horne v. Department of Agriculture
The Court ruled that a federal program requiring raisin growers to physically set aside a portion of their crop for the government, without pay, is a taking of their property that requires just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
The decision confirms that the Constitution protects personal property from uncompensated government seizure just as strongly as it protects real estate, and it means the government cannot use market-access rules to sidestep that guarantee.
“The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.”
The Court's core rationale for extending the physical-taking rule to personal property.
How it got here: After the Supreme Court first ruled the Hornes could raise their takings claim as a defense to the fine, the Ninth Circuit rejected that claim on the merits, and the Hornes again sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Under a Depression-era marketing order, raisin growers in some years had to give up nearly half their crop to a government-run Raisin Committee, free of charge, so it could be sold, donated, or otherwise disposed of to stabilize prices. Marvin and Laura Horne, who both grow and handle raisins, refused to turn over their reserve raisins, and the government fined them the raisins' market value plus civil penalties.
The question before the Court
Could the government force raisin growers to hand over a share of their crop for free without paying them for it?
Why it matters
Farmers and other producers subject to similar federal marketing programs gain a clearer path to challenge mandatory set-asides as unconstitutional takings. The ruling also relieved the Hornes of roughly $680,000 in fines and penalties, and signals to regulators that requiring people to physically hand over goods—rather than merely limiting how they use their own property—triggers a strict constitutional compensation requirement.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, not a remand for further fact-finding. Because the government had already calculated just compensation by fining the Hornes the raisins' fair market value, the Court found no need to send the case back for further calculations. The Hornes are relieved of the fine and civil penalty, and the litigation, which lasted more than a decade, is over.
What this does not decide
The Court did not order any further calculation of compensation, and it left open broader questions Justice Breyer raised about offsetting compensation with benefits to growers' remaining raisins, as well as Justice Thomas's separate concern about whether the program's use of the raisins even counts as a "public use."
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas joined the majority in full but wrote separately to question whether the Raisin Committee's disposal of raisins to exporters and foreign governments even qualifies as a constitutionally required 'public use.' He suggested that if it does not, calculating 'just compensation' on remand would be pointless, since the taking itself might be unlawful regardless of payment.
Dissent in part — Justice Breyer
Justice Breyer agreed the reserve requirement is a physical taking (Parts I and II) but dissented from Part III, arguing the case should be remanded so lower courts could determine whether increased value to the growers' remaining free-tonnage raisins offset the value of the raisins taken, potentially meaning the fine already provided adequate, or even excessive, compensation.
Dissent — Justice Sotomayor
“Loretto sets a high bar for such claims: It requires that each and every property right be destroyed by governmental action before that action can be said to have effected a per se taking.”Sotomayor's central objection that the growers' retained interest in proceeds should defeat the takings claim.
Justice Sotomayor argued that under Loretto, a per se physical taking requires the destruction of every property right, and since the growers retained a right to net proceeds from the reserve raisins, no per se taking occurred here. She would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit and warned the majority's approach makes the bright-line Loretto test unworkable.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the rule from Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. — that when the government physically takes possession of property, this is a 'per se' taking requiring compensation regardless of other factors — and held that this rule applies equally to personal property, like raisins, and real property, like land.
- Because actual raisins were physically transferred from growers to the Raisin Committee, with title passing to the government and the Committee then free to sell, donate, or dispose of the raisins as it saw fit, the Court found this was a direct physical appropriation rather than a mere regulation of how growers could use their property.
- The Court rejected the argument that the growers' right to any leftover ('net') proceeds from selling reserve raisins meant there was no taking, reasoning that once a physical taking occurs, any payment received afterward goes only to how much compensation is owed — not to whether a taking happened at all.
- The Court distinguished Andrus v. Allard, where owners kept the rights to possess, donate, and devise items that could not be sold, because here growers lost all control over the raisins entirely, including physical possession and title.
- The Court also rejected the idea that the arrangement was a voluntary trade for a government benefit, reasoning that the ability to sell produce in interstate commerce — unlike a specialized license to sell hazardous chemicals at issue in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. — is not a privilege the government can withhold to extract a waiver of the constitutional right to compensation.
- Having concluded that a taking occurred, the Court applied the standard rule that just compensation equals the market value of the property at the time of the taking, and found the government had already effectively calculated that value when it fined the Hornes the fair market value of the missing raisins.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (458 U.S. 419)
Extends Loretto's per se physical-taking rule from real property to personal property like raisins.
Distinguishes Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (505 U.S. 1003)
Says Lucas concerned regulatory takings, not direct physical appropriations, so it doesn't control here.
Distinguishes Andrus v. Allard (444 U.S. 51)
Distinguishes Andrus because owners there kept possession and could donate or devise their property.