How horne v agriculture harmonizes with commerce clause

image

What was the last term of Horne v Department of Agriculture?

Last Term, in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 2 2. 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015). the Court revisited this debate, this time in the context of personal property.

What was the government’s formal demand for the Hornes?

The Government’s formal demand that the Hornes turn over a percentage of their raisin crop without charge, for the Government’s control and use, is “of such a unique character that it is a taking without regard to other factors that a court might ordinarily examine.” Id., at 432.

What was the issue in the Hornes V Hornes case?

Horne v. Department of Agriculture Brief Fact Summary. Under a USDA order, the federal government was required to obtain a portion of raisin farmers’ raisin crops for government use. The Hornes, Plaintiff, refused to give any of their raisins to the government.

How could the Hornes avoid relinquishing large percentages of their crop?

It held that the Hornes could avoid relinquishing large percentages of their crop by “planting different crops.” 730 F. 3d 1128, 1143. Held : The Fifth Amendment requires that the Government pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property.

image


Why did the Horne case arise?

The cases 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.


Why did Horne II. argue that there was no taking?

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. Again, Horne petitioned for a writ of certiorari and, again, the petition was granted.


Why did Marvin Horne refuse to give raisins to the Raisin Committee?

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 rais ins Horne refused to allow them onto his property. The Committee then fined Horne $680,000, the value of the raisins plus a penalty. 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. 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. 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.


Why did the Tucker Act not require Horne to sue?

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. Consequently, Justice Thomas held the case should be remanded to the Ninth Circuit to consider the merits of Horne’s takings claim.


How much was Horne fined for stealing raisins?

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.


What court did the Horne case go to?

Horne petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.


Which case established the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment?

U.S. Const. amend. V., Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, Tucker Act. Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013); 576 U.S. 350, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015), were a pair of United States Supreme Court cases in which the Court established that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies …


When the government mandates one to relinquish specific, identifiable, and safe personal property as a condition to

When the government mandates one to relinquish specific, identifiable, and safe personal property as a condition to engage in commerce, the government’s actions constitute a per se taking, requiring just compensation. This rule applies to both real property and personal property. Moreover, if the government conducts a physical taking of another’s personal property, the government is required to pay just compensation, despite the fact that it may reserve a portion for the property. In Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., this Court held that pesticides are required to have labels informing the public of its health and safety information to sell the product. 467 U.S. 986 (1984). This court balanced the burden of the labeling requirement with the governmental benefit of a license to sell a dangerous product. In Leonard & Leonard v. Earle, this Court also held that oyster packers were required to send to the government a specific portion of their harvest as a condition of harvesting oysters. 279 U.S. 392 (1929). Here, the court of appeals improperly held that the governments actions do not constitute a taking because the order is requiring the Hornes relinquish a portion of their raisin crop as a condition to continue selling the raisins in commerce constitutes a per se taking, requiring just compensation. Further, the government has not paid just compensation in this case. This case is different from similar government orders, which involved pesticides and oysters. First, Ruckelshaus is different because, unlike pesticides, raisins are not dangerous chemicals. Thus, there is not a reasonable justification for the placing an onerous condition on their sale. Second, Earle is different because, unlike oysters, which are wild animals that the government owns under state law, raisins are the fruit of the Hornes’ own labor. Therefore, the judgement of the court of appeals is reversed because the USDA order constitutes a per se takings without just compensation.


Is the USDA order a taking without compensation?

Under the Takings Clause, the government may take private property for public use on the condition that the government provides just compensation. Here, the USDA order is not a taking for public use. Therefore, the taking is unlawful regardless if just compensation was awarded or not.


What is the Government’s formal demand that the Hornes turn over a percentage of their raisin crop

The Government’s formal demand that the Hornes turn over a percentage of their raisin crop without charge, for the Government’s control and use, is “of such a unique character that it is a taking without regard to other factors that a court might ordinarily examine.”. Loretto v.


Why was the Hornes requirement not a per se taking?

The court determined that the requirement was not a per se taking because personal property is afforded less protection under the Takings Clause than real property and because the Hornes, who retained an interest in any net proceeds, were not completely divested of their property.


Why did the Hornes get fined?

The Government fined the Hornes the fair market value of the raisins as well as additional civil penalties for their failure to obey the raisin marketing order. The Hornes sought relief in federal court, arguing that the reserve requirement was an unconstitutional taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment.


What is the purpose of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937?

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate “marketing orders” to help maintain stable markets for particular agricultural products. The marketing order for raisins established a Raisin Administrative Committee that imposes a reserve …


When did the Hornes refuse to pick up raisins?

In 2002, the Hornes refused to set aside any raisins for the Government, believing they were not legally bound to do so. The Government sent trucks to the Hornes’ facility at eight o’clock one morning to pick up the raisins, but the Hornes refused entry. App. 31; cf. post, at 11 ( Sotomayor, J., dissenting).


What is the duty of the government to pay compensation when it takes your car?

The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home. Pp. 4–9. (1) This principle, dating back as far as Magna Carta, was codified in the Takings Clause in part because of property appropriations by both sides during the Revolutionary War.


What act of 1937 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate “marketing orders”?

I. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate “marketing orders” to help maintain stable markets for particular agricultural products.

image


Overview

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013); 576 U.S. 350, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015), were a pair of United States Supreme Court cases in which the Court established that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to personal property. The cases 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 hel…


Background

During the Great Depression raisin prices dropped over 80%. Congress reacted by passing the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (“AMAA”). The AMAA allows United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to issue marketing orders and agreements holding a portion of harvests in reserve so as to inflate prices. Authority to determine the annual portion of “reserve tonnage” raisins that are held by the government and the “free tonnage” raisins that owners may …


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. Justice Thomas also concluded that the Tucker Act did not require Horne to sue in the Court of Federal Claims bec…


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. 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.


See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 569
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576


External links

• Scotusblog.com (Horne I)
• Scotusblog.com (Horne II)

Leave a Comment