By: David Gardy Ermann
In the United States Supreme Court Case Horne et al. v. Department of Agriculture, the opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, reversed the previous ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Marvin and Laura Horne did not abide by the reserve requirement set by the Raisin Administrative Committee that seemingly complied with The Agriculture Marketing Agreement of 1937. This reserve requirement on raisins was allowing the Government to take a percentage of the raisins and essentially doing with it as they pleased without paying a just compensation to the owners. The Hornes’ did not provide any raisins to the Government, as they believed the Government taking their private property without just compensation to be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, in the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, which held reserve requirement percentages of 47% and 30%, respectively.
The US Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit held that the taking of this reserve requirement was not in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit believed that there was a difference in protection between personal property and real property under the Takings Clause. The percentage of raisins that the Government was taking would be considered personal property. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court believed this issue raised three questions. These questions referenced if there should be a difference to whether the Government needs to pay just compensation for the taking of both personal property and real property or just real property, whether just compensation is not necessary if the Government only takes possession of an interest in property, and whether this issue constituted as a government taking. Chief Justice Roberts references the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment as simply protecting private property and not making any distinction between personal property and real property. So, it would seem like the Government must pay just compensation for any private property that they take from individuals. Next, the Chief Justice writes about how the Government must compensate the former owner of the property even if the government took possession of an interest in property. Lastly, the Government will be considered to be taking property even if it is intended to promote commerce. The Government held that raisin growers could avoid the reserve requirement by not growing raisins and instead growing other crops or keep the raisins as grapes, which can be sold or used for juice or wine. This sentiment seemed unjust and the Court believe that it was not fair to have raisin growers, like the Hornes’, have to, at times, give up 47% of their crops. The ruling relieved the Hornes’ of having to pay the Government the $483,843.53 that would have constituted the fair market value for the percentage of raisins that they did not provide to the Government from 2002-2004, as well as not having to pay the fine or the civil penalty.
In the United States Supreme Court Case Horne et al. v. Department of Agriculture, the opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, reversed the previous ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Marvin and Laura Horne did not abide by the reserve requirement set by the Raisin Administrative Committee that seemingly complied with The Agriculture Marketing Agreement of 1937. This reserve requirement on raisins was allowing the Government to take a percentage of the raisins and essentially doing with it as they pleased without paying a just compensation to the owners. The Hornes’ did not provide any raisins to the Government, as they believed the Government taking their private property without just compensation to be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, in the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, which held reserve requirement percentages of 47% and 30%, respectively.
The US Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit held that the taking of this reserve requirement was not in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit believed that there was a difference in protection between personal property and real property under the Takings Clause. The percentage of raisins that the Government was taking would be considered personal property. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court believed this issue raised three questions. These questions referenced if there should be a difference to whether the Government needs to pay just compensation for the taking of both personal property and real property or just real property, whether just compensation is not necessary if the Government only takes possession of an interest in property, and whether this issue constituted as a government taking. Chief Justice Roberts references the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment as simply protecting private property and not making any distinction between personal property and real property. So, it would seem like the Government must pay just compensation for any private property that they take from individuals. Next, the Chief Justice writes about how the Government must compensate the former owner of the property even if the government took possession of an interest in property. Lastly, the Government will be considered to be taking property even if it is intended to promote commerce. The Government held that raisin growers could avoid the reserve requirement by not growing raisins and instead growing other crops or keep the raisins as grapes, which can be sold or used for juice or wine. This sentiment seemed unjust and the Court believe that it was not fair to have raisin growers, like the Hornes’, have to, at times, give up 47% of their crops. The ruling relieved the Hornes’ of having to pay the Government the $483,843.53 that would have constituted the fair market value for the percentage of raisins that they did not provide to the Government from 2002-2004, as well as not having to pay the fine or the civil penalty.